Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
The greatest irony is when you say someone else oversimplifies. It is like your defense mechanism. Talk about oversimplifying... They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification. The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing. 800000 a month loosing their jobs. Giving people the opportunity to refi at lower rates helped save the economy from depression. The net result was more money for every home owner. Those people you are referring to weren't punished, they were protected from having prior systemic mistakes destroy the economy for decades. Then these tea sippers into power people who want to set up the same conditions that allowed it. We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
"They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification"
It's simple, I agree. But that's what led to the birth of the tea party. If you want to deny the earth is round to serve your agenda, knock yourself out.
"The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing"
I think every foreclosure in history was caused by this. What was unique about the 2008 crash, is how many subprime mortgages were out there, houses that people (even when they were still working) never should have qualified for. It was the abandonment of sound mortgage underwriting, combined with the way these crappy mortgages were bundled into financial instruments that almost no one understands (credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations) that caused the crash.
"The net result was more money for every home owner."
if you ignore the fact that the bailout has to be paid for, you might be right. All ideas look great when, during the cost/benefit analysis, you focus on the benefit and ignore the cost.
I'm not saying I was opposed to the bailout, I have more empathy for people in despair than most folks do. I was pointing out what led to the genesis if the tea party, I was not taking a stance on whether or not the bailouts were a good idea,
"Those people you are referring to weren't punished"
They paid for mistakes that others made.
"We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path"
yes we will. Where would you say we are right now, 15 months into his presidency, from an economic perspective? I notice you didn't comment on that. Stock market, unemployment, GDP, homeownership, are those looking good, or no?
And my use of the word 'oversimplification' wasn't a defense mechanism. It was, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of your thoughtless (and yes, simple) implication that conservatives care less about people who struggle, than liberals. It would be very convenient for you if that were true, and if it were true, I'd probably be a liberal. It's not remotely close to being true.