What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
240 Comments
- nonsequitor, on 12/12/2007, -3/+144I think there should be accountability. You go into a casino and gamble away your life savings, you don't get a do over. I *WANT* home prices to fall. Homes in my area valued at $200k 10 years ago, are now appraised at $700k. They are not worth that much just because someone got suckered into paying a higher price and taking out a loan they could not afford.
A lot of people made bad decisions, they need to live with the consequences. The real criminals are the lenders who should be prosecuted for their crimes. People broke the law; real estates agents, loan brokers, appraisers all conspired to get people into homes they couldn't afford so they could make a buck. Often times misrepresenting the borrower's actual financial situation in order to secure the loans they can't pay.
In short, those who were dumb enough to borrow money they can't pay back should lose their houses and the people who broke the law to get them into those houses should GO TO JAIL. House prices would drop back down to what the market can actually bear and I won't have to spend a ridiculous amount of money to buy a house.
Obviously thats not happening, looks like I'll be renting for a few more years until this attempt to prevent the free market from correcting itself is no longer influencing the market. - Screwy1138, on 12/12/2007, -3/+68There is no need for a bailout. Those who borrowed who couldn't afford it, should lose their home. Those who lent to those they knew were high risk, should live with those high risks.
Trying to patch it only will make things worse long term. The problem has to be fixed, it has to be fixed the right way, and there has to be suffering. - nutsackninja, on 12/12/2007, -4/+61I don't want to bail out people who are too stupid to demand value for their money. These people priced me out of a home for over 5 years. I hope they lose everything, and house prices go to the same level they were at 10 years ago before this mess.
- glue, on 12/12/2007, -6/+63It's hard to believe Americas would bailout the financial institutions who likely created this mess in the first place (and profited?) and screw the homeowner.
- inactive, on 12/12/2007, -3/+39It'd be nice for some of us working Joes to actually be able to afford homes. What goes up, must come down. No federal interference required.
- inactive, on 12/12/2007, -6/+41For gods sake stop saying these people were swindled...they knew exactly what they were doing it just caught up to them. Let them learn the lessons of life....cant afford it? THEN DONT BUY IT!!! why is it so hard for you people to realize this undeniable fact? This is just another example of America turning into a Welfare society.
- inactive, on 12/12/2007, -0/+29The problem with the situation is that both sides (the lenders and the borrowers) share the blame. Greed is what caused this. Greedy people wanting McMansions when they KNEW they couldn't afford them along with greed lending institutions that gave them outrageous loans KNOWING that the borrowers couldn't afford them.
This is one of those times where the gov't needs to just step the ***** back and STOP interfering in the market. We NEED this bubble to pop so that market re-stabilization can happen...and maybe the retards on both sides will learn their lessons. They'll never learn ANYthing if the gov't keeps playing Nanny Bailout. - aliengoods, on 12/12/2007, -0/+28I'm a renter, because I saw how crazy things were getting and decided not to buy. If you bought high, my tax dollars shouldn't be used to keep the value of your home from dropping. I can't wait for them to drop so I can buy a house at a reasonable price, but right now, in my area, the prices are inflated by about 25-40% (considering the average incomes). The government isn't obligated to help so people don't feel like retards.
I find it amazing how many people seem to want limited government but then support these corporate welfare programs. This is a pathetic attempt to maintain a bubble so the economy doesn't pop with it, but that's already happening. Look at the value of the dollar. Outsourcing, the war in Iraq, rising health care costs, the trillion dollars tax break for the rich, etc. We're seeing the results of policies that were never meant to make the US a stronger country, but were instead intended to benefit a select few. And the people that are going to lose the most are those that risked the most on the ever-expanding economy, something which history has shown is never sustainable without the occasional recession or bubble burst. I've hedged my bets by renting and paying off as much debt as possible (mainly student loans), so I'm not completely screwed if things go down the crapper. - spawnfree, on 12/12/2007, -0/+27this is why finance is not taught at school.
the system needs fresh lambs.
an intelligent and empowered population would be harder to scam. - Screwy1138, on 12/12/2007, -2/+26What happened to accountability? People shouldn't be taking loans of more than $100 if they don't know what the hell they're doing. It's their own damn fault (except for those institutions that actually broke the law, and those situations can be handled happily in criminal and civil courts).
- pintomp3, on 12/12/2007, -0/+24privatize the profit, socialize the loss. we've got the worst of both worlds.
- nonsequitor, on 12/12/2007, -3/+25You say that like we actually have a say in the matter.
- dafragsta, on 12/12/2007, -3/+24Oh, you mean like the savings and loans bailout of the 80s which ballooned our national debt more than probably any other federally endorsed expense? Or maybe you mean how most of the money we pay in taxes is not used to leverage scale economics, but rather friends of friends doing favors in no-compete contracts that are more fat than meat? Or maybe you mean how Katrina victims were kept aboard cruise ships for thousands of dollars per month per room?
Our government has made a reputation on being dishonest and wasteful to the point that when you mention these things to the common person who doesn't even care about politics, they don't even feel the pain when they say "What do you expect? They are politicians."
That is complacency. Our system of government has made stealing from the poor and giving to the rich an art form. This also usually happens in socialist states as well, but their citizens aren't allowed to talk about that. - gegroff, on 12/12/2007, -1/+19Like our government really gives a ***** what we think.
- Scottamus, on 12/12/2007, -0/+18Bail them out why? So they can go do the same ***** thing again. I don't think so. Don't keep watering a dead tree.
- aliengoods, on 12/12/2007, -1/+18The bailout is funded by the government, which is funded by taxpayers. Did you think there were unicorns that ***** gold and that's where the money was coming from?
- Nougat, on 12/12/2007, -0/+17I'm an owner, and I'd like to see a correction as well. I intend to stay in my house for a long time (possibly 40+ years), so its value means less to me than it would to someone who was intending to move within five years.
If the housing market would correct itself, more people who are not homeowners would be able to afford to purchase - legitimately, and not by falsification of debt/income or by getting into bizarrely constructed mortgages. That would mean more housing starts, and more jobs to support those housing starts. More *real* jobs, that actually produce something, not pretend jobs that just push piles of money around and skim off the top.
The US has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, and with them a secure financial footing. You can't send construction jobs overseas. Seems like a good direction to go, if you ask me. - inactive, on 12/12/2007, -1/+16I'm never going to be able to afford a house myself, ever.....why should I have to pay for the ***** who bought too much of a house themselves? ***** I hate my government.
- tattertech, on 12/12/2007, -3/+17Wait, so... You go and take out a massive loan. You don't try to research things yourself to figure out what actually happens.
And then, while I do research things and take correct risks... I have to bail you out? - VitriolAndAngst, on 12/12/2007, -0/+13Having done the "ooops, I made huge profits but now my accounts collapsed" mistake in the S&L Bailout, and the Great Depression -- and probably twice more in US history, I'd expect these Bankers knew what was going to happen -- and that as usual, the government would assume the risk for them -- so what is the downside from their point of view?
- Cyberdactyl, on 12/12/2007, -3/+16Another device for responsible people to pay for the irresponsible.
This is just another example of why we should NEVER EVER move from S.S. to personal retirement investment. . . unless of course, you want to bail those same folks out 15 years after implementation. - Albionshores, on 12/12/2007, -4/+17It is putting a cash sink at the top of the tree. Outlandish lending to cream off cash from people pressured to push beyond their means. Taxpayers forfeit spending on services to bail out the mortgage owners - legitimizing the decision of money lenders to over valuate and lend. It is a step to eradicate accountability by pushing the burden on to everybody. I don't have a problem with sharing a burden - but when the burden has been intentionally created those transactions responsible should shoulder a lion's share of the blame.
It's basically throwing a gladiatorial show to keep the plebs happy and Caesar in his seat by keeping the housing market artificially afloat. - WilliamDavis, on 12/12/2007, -0/+13I don't think they're really trying to save houses for people. I think they're trying to bail out the people who bought those bs mortgage notes. That's where the big money is/was. In order to do that, they have to make the plea that people shouldn't lose their homes. As far as I'm concerned, I don't see why taxpayers should pay for homes that people are unable to afford. I gotta make my own payments and live with my own bad decisions. Shouldn't all of them? (borrowers and lenders)
- thewump, on 12/12/2007, -1/+14It pisses me off. People who make dumb agreements should pay the consequences
- vanguardanon, on 12/12/2007, -0/+13So many of these loans were for second homes (investment homes). Sometimes you lose money on investments, deal with it. I've lost money on investments before and never for a second did I think that the US government should pay me back.
- JasonCox, on 12/12/2007, -2/+14Instead of penalizing the taxpayer how about we penalize the lenders who screwed over people in the first place?
- cikcanada, on 12/12/2007, -0/+11Let's explore that notion just a little bit more. If a landlord doubled rent (which is patently illegal in most jurisdictions), you would move. Similarly, if your mortgage comes due, and due to interest rates you can no longer afford your home, you move.
The issue with people losing their homes only applies if they refinance at higher rates, rates they could not afford in the first place. That added to housing prices declining is a rather well-known term, "risk". People will not lose their homes simply because the mortgage is purchased and sold on a market. Large financial institutions will certainly lose money due to risky lending practices. However, if you don't nip this in the bud now, it will only repeat itself within 20 years, when new blood is injected into the workforce, blood that does not remember the crisis.
When you buy a house, and pay a mortgage, you NEVER, EVER stretch yourself to make the payments. It's a bad practice. That's why banks require that no more that 40% (ideally 32%) of your salary be used to cover your homeowner costs (mortgage, electricity, etc). If you are paying $1k/month and cannot afford for your house to cost $1200/month, you will have issues when interest rates fluctuate. - trer, on 12/12/2007, -1/+12"Chinkra"? Being a racist bigot is why us "pple" "laff" at you.
- BOFH2, on 12/12/2007, -1/+11Let's see a person walks into a lending institution, borrows money that they can't pay back if the interest rate goes up and this is my problem why? If I lose my home it is my fault for thinking that the lending company is going to do what is good for me.
- dalexandruz, on 12/12/2007, -4/+14and whats with the ***** prices of homes ranging from 100k to 800k. a home that cost 25k to build 30 yrs ago should cost another buyer 500k. ***** property taxes. your paying rent to the government for owning a home, land of the free? ***** property taxes going towards schools. if a parent sends their kid to private school they should have the option of not paying property taxes at all. income tax and sales tax should cover schools, road repairs, etc.....
- thugok, on 12/12/2007, -1/+11Being stupid is no excuse.
- StealthMonkey, on 12/12/2007, -2/+11I'm sick and tired of other people screwing stuff up and DEMANDING that I pay to fix their problems because they are too stupid to do research before they do anything. How dare you? I'm just going to stop buying insurance. When something happens, I'll run the the government and cry, "I had no idea what I was doing. Let the tax payers help me!"
- Screwy1138, on 12/12/2007, -3/+11And no, I don't rent. But I made a reasonable house purchase, I paid about 1.5 times my annual salary at the time.
- Y0tsuya, on 12/12/2007, -7/+15By homeowner you mean f**cked borrower.
- kiwiboyus, on 12/12/2007, -0/+8I'd be called a "liberal" by most, I believe in free health care and education but I also believe in personal responsibility. If you borrow more than you know you will be able to reply just so you can live a life style you saw on TV then you should own the consequences, end of story.
- edstate, on 12/12/2007, -0/+8Right-o.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that they actually made this whole thing AS BAD AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE in order to force the Government's hand. - zengonzo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+8Oh, yes, they did.
- TctclMvPhase, on 12/12/2007, -0/+8That employment should not have been there in the first place...that's why its a bubble because things are kept at artificially high levels. What we see as high levels of unemployment is simply the market correcting itself to the level of employment that would have been there had the bubble not been created. Nonsequitor is right, we should let the market correct itself. If you bailout, then it messes with the incentives of market players, by removing consequences from their actions; therefore, in the future, people will take similar poorly calculated risks and we will be right back where we are now.
- bigjimslade, on 12/12/2007, -0/+7Don't do anything. Nobody should step in at all. This is, of course, political suicide, but it's the proper public policy for this situation. Banks lose, borrowers lose, those brokers who broke the law go to jail, homes are foreclosed, new buyers see the opportunity and buy a home at a good price.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 12/12/2007, -2/+9If we were still in a Democracy, what most American's thought would matter. The corporations want the government to guarantee their success, as long as they guarantee the government's power. See how that works?
- 11oops, on 12/12/2007, -0/+7In short, you had the opportunity to borrow above your means, sought out advice, and made an informed decision not to. Therefore, you are not dumb (at least when it comes to borrowing). The people who did choose to borrow above their means ARE dumb, and I (and you) should not have to bail them out.
- aliengoods, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8I hope that includes the mortgage institutions that borrowed people money knowing they would have to default in 5 years. They were hoping to be able to foreclose on the home and resell it at a profit, but that ain't happening right now.
- jonnyeuchre, on 12/12/2007, -3/+10Of course not. It's a bank bailout. Banks have a fidiciary responsiblity to buy these mortgages back if fraud is involved. So, if all these investors sue, the banks are on the hook. The only way around it is for the gov't to back refinancing. Therefore the tax payer is on the hook, not the bank. And thank goodness for THAT!
- HypocriteDigg, on 12/12/2007, -8/+15All you need to know is that if Bush supports it, then it's making him and/or his cronies money somehow.
- StealthMonkey, on 12/12/2007, -4/+11PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
- edstate, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8Without people like you there would be far fewer victims in the world.
- brufleth, on 12/12/2007, -0/+7Thousands of people got fat bonuses on top of their fat salaries while they broke their goals. To say nobody profited shows a lack of understanding of how the system works and how people are motivated to get into this sort of mess. Transferring all that debt around made a lot of people a lot of money.
- FuzzyBunny, on 12/12/2007, -1/+7No a smart person gets advice from experts and then does a little research to make sure that they understand just what the hell the experts are saying. A stupid person just takes the advice from people with vested interests on blind faith.
- Wargalas, on 12/12/2007, -0/+6Notice how those who support it in both graphs are roughly the same?
Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. - Riemannian, on 12/12/2007, -1/+7Look, there were alot of lenders and mortgage originators who broke the law. I agree with alot of commenters that these people should be prosecuted fully and fined, whatever. But let's not pretend that alot of borrowers didn't commit "wink, wink" fraud as well, where the borrower would lie about their income, the originator understood it, but got the loan approved anyway which they sold to the banks. ALOT of people were borrowing homes, lying about their incomes, intending to flip. If it were only the lenders' fault, why were there so many infomercials about flipping real estate in the past couple of years and so many people studying to become brokers?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 241 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is