# Mortgage bailout.. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505 "2008-09-21T01:24:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/101 "2008-09-25T07:45:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Again with the crime thing! What is it that you think you’re proving with that? If you can read, it should be clear. There’s scummy behavior and illegal behavior. If you’re a victim of scummy behavior you’re on your own. If you’re a victim of illegal behavior, you an avenue to be made whole again. This really isn’t so hard as you’re intent on making it out to be. Really. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/102 "2008-09-25T08:01:33Z")
Oh, I understand cynicism, **Mag** , I just don’t want none. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/103 "2008-09-25T14:27:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The lending rules were relaxed at the behest of democrats so that people who wouldn’t ordinarily qualify for a loan could get one. You’re factually WRONG. Absolutely, utterly WRONG. Did you bother to read post #85? Take note of how President Bush prevented every Attorney General in EVERY state from using their state’s laws to prevent Predatory Lending, going so far as to SUE to stop investigations? Take a wild guess who made the following speech, and when: > [@](#): > > Thank you, all. Thanks, for coming. Well, thanks for the warm welcome. Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your attendance to this very important conference. You see, \*\*we want everybody in America to own their own home. That’s what we want. This is – an ownership society is a compassionate society. > \*\* > More and more people own their homes in America today. Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because few (sic) than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That’s a homeownership gap. It’s a – it’s a gap that we’ve got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future. **We’ve got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.** > > I set an ambitious goal. It’s one that I believe we can achieve. It’s a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we’ll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.) > > Some may think that’s a stretch. I don’t think it is. I think it is realistic. I know we’re going to have to work together to achieve it. But when we do our communities will be stronger and so will our economy. Achieving the goal is going to require some good policies out of Washington. And it’s going to require a strong commitment from those of you involved in the housing industry. > > . . . > > All of us here in America should believe, and I think we do, that we should be, as I mentioned, a nation of owners. Owning something is freedom, as far as I’m concerned. It’s part of a free society. And ownership of a home helps bring stability to neighborhoods. You own your home in a neighborhood, you have more interest in how your neighborhood feels, looks, whether it’s safe or not. It brings pride to people, it’s a part of an asset-based to society. It helps people build up their own individual portfolio, provides an opportunity, if need be, for a mom or a dad to leave something to their child. It’s a part of – it’s of being a – it’s a part of – an important part of America. > > Homeownership is also an important part of our economic vitality. If – when we meet this project, this goal, according to our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, we will have added an additional $256 billion to the economy by encouraging 5.5 million new home owners in America; the activity – the economic activity stimulated with the additional purchasers, the additional buyers, the additional demand will be upwards of $256 billion. And that’s important because it will help people find work. > > Low interest rates, low inflation are very important foundations for economic growth. The idea of encouraging new homeownership and the money that will be circulated as a result of people purchasing homes will mean people are more likely to find a job in America. This project not only is good for the soul of the country, it’s good for the pocketbook of the country, as well. > > **To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I want to talk about four that need to be overcome.** First, down payments. A lot of folks can’t make a down payment. They may be qualified. They may desire to buy a home, **but they don’t have the money to make a down payment.** I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is the hurdle that they can’t cross. And \*\*one way to address that is to have the federal government participate. > \*\* > And so we’ve called upon Congress to set up what’s called the American Dream Down Payment Fund, which will provide financial grants to local governments to help first-time home buyers who qualify to make the down payment on their home. If a down payment is a problem, there’s a way we can address that. And when Congress funds the program, this should help 200,000 new families over the next five years become first-time home buyers. > > [snip] > > And we’ve got to set priorities. And one of the key priorities is going to be inner-city America. Good schools and affordable housing will help revitalize our inner cities. > > Another obstacle to minority homeownership is the lack of information. You know, getting into your own home can be complicated. It can be a difficult process. I had that very same problem. (Laughter and applause.) > > Every home buyer has responsibilities and rights that need to be understood clearly. And yet, when you look at some of the contracts, there’s a lot of small print. And you can imagine somebody newly arrived from Peru looking at all that print, and saying, I’m not sure I can possibly understand that. Why do I want to buy a home? There’s an educational process that needs to go on, not only to explain the contract, explain obligation, but also to explain financing options, to \*\*help people understand the complexities of a homeownership market, and also at the same time to protect people from unscrupulous lenders, people who would take advantage of a good-hearted soul who is trying to realize their dream. > \*\* > . . . > > Last June, I issued a challenge to everyone involved in the housing industry to help **increase the number of minority families to be home owners. And what I’m talking about, I’m talking about your bankers and your brokers** and developers, as well as members of faith-based community and community programs. And the response to the home owners challenge has been very strong and very gratifying. Twenty-two public and private partners have signed up to help meet our national goal. **Partners in the mortgage finance industry are encouraging homeownership by purchasing more loans made by banks to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities.** > > Representatives of the real estate and homebuilding industries, through their nationwide networks or affiliates, are committed to broadening homeownership. They made the commitment to help meet the national goal we set. > > **Freddie Mae – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – I see the heads who are here; I want to thank you all for coming – (laughter) – have committed to provide more money for lenders. They’ve committed to help meet the shortage of capital available for minority home buyers.** > > Fannie Mae recently announced a $50 million program to develop 600 homes for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Franklin, I appreciate that commitment. They also announced $12.7 million investment in a condominium project in Harlem. It’s the beginnings of a series of initiatives to help meet the goal of 5.5 million families. Franklin told me at the meeting where we kicked this office, he said, I promise you we will help, and he has, like many others in this room have done. > > **Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans.** Freddie Mac is also working with the Department of Defense to promote construction and financing for housing for men and women in the military. > > . . . > > The other thing Kirbyjon told me, which I really appreciate, is **you don’t have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.** And I know Kirbyjon. He is what I call a social entrepreneur who is using his platform as a Methodist preacher to improve the neighborhood and the community in which he lives. > > . . . > > But he also understood that a homeownership program is incredibly important to revitalize this neighborhood that a lot of folks had already quit on. I suspect one day we’ll all go back to Luis’ neighborhood and we’ll find first-time home owners there, and a good education system. And this will be the beginning of a – of a neighborhood revitalization in that part of Philadelphia, because there was vision and drive and hope for our fellow citizens. > > So I want to thank you all for coming. I want to thank you for your determination to help close the minority homeownership gap. It’s an incredibly important initiative for this country. See, America is a good and generous country. It’s a great place. Part of it was to make sure that the dream, the American Dream, the ability to come from anywhere in our society and say, I own this home, is a reality – can be achievable for anybody, regardless of their status, regardless of their – of whether or not they – whether or not they think the dream is meant for them. > > I mean, we can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home. > > **Again, I want to tell you, this is an initiative – as Mel will tell you, it’s an initiative that we take very seriously. We’re going to stay on it until we’re – until we achieve the goal.** And as we all achieve the goal, we can look back and say, America is a better place for our hard work, our efforts and our desires for our fellow Americans to realize the greatness of our country. > > Thank you for coming. May God bless your vision. May God bless America. That was George W. Bush in [October, 2002](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html). He then set about tying the hands of every single one of our 50 states so that he could realize his goal. > [@magellan01](#): > > The risk assessment that had been in place for so long was gutted or ignored. This is a result of that. For decades the market knew that you should get 20% down, maybe ten in extraordinary situations. They knew that the likelihood of someone defaulting would be higher if they had little or no money on the line. The rules concerning how much one could borrow based on their income was also relaxed. What we have now is the result of those well-intentioned changes. And now you want to let people who made dumb or imprudent decisions off the hook, rewarding them for those decisions. This is just one more way the democrats will seek to redistribute wealth. It’s disgusting. What’s disgusting is your inability and unwillingness to accept what even Republicans in Congress know and accept – this was not the fault of homebuyers, but of lack of oversight, lack of regulation, and **predatory** lending practices that were designed to **deceive** people into loans that had **hidden fees and costs** and other **deceptive** aspects. The “relaxing” you call “well-intentioned” was started by your buddies as far back as Reagan, and Phil Gramm and George W. Bush have filthy, dirty hands in this nightmare. And don’t think I absolve Bill Clinton of his responsibility for his part in repealing Glass-Steagall, either. But he and the Democrats didn’t spend decades and take hundreds of millions of dollars in Lobbyist money and campaign contributions from the Banking Industry like the Republicans, who controlled Congress for most of that period, and who little by little, piece by piece, gutted any regulation that existed to protect the public from an unscrupulous industry. [Educate yourself](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html) to the FACTS. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/104 "2008-09-25T15:20:43Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > You’re factually WRONG. Absolutely, utterly WRONG. > > Did you bother to read post #85? Take note of how President Bush prevented every Attorney General in EVERY state from using their state’s laws to prevent Predatory Lending, going so far as to SUE to stop investigations? Try to read what I actually write. Do you deny that democrats pushed to allow lower income people to get mortgages that they weren’t able to get when the normal guidelines were used? Yes or no. > [@Shayna](#): > > FACTS. This REALLY isn’t that hard to understand. The FACT is that regardless of a change in rules, each person who took out a mortgage was handed a contract. It falls to them to make sure they are comfortable with that contract. They are completely and utterly free to NOT sign it. Millions of people did NOT sign it. Millions of people saw all the teaser ads and didn’t bite. Many people (of whom I’m one) talked to a lender and decided it was too risky, that although the bank might be willing to finance X for me, that the ultimate decision resided with them. If a law was passed tomorrow stating that I could borrow a million dollars at 1% interest with 10% down and I take that loan and invest it in what I believe to be a safe 5% return investment, but the investment goes south, I am at fault, not the lender. Now some people would take that loan, and some would make money doing so. Good for them. But it is a gamble. Other people would say "wow, that’s tempting, I probably can’t lose. But I could and I don’t want to 1) risk my $100,000 and 2) then be on the hook for the other $900,000. Let’s call that investment the Enron Mutual Fund. People need to be responsible for the decisions they make. When they make imprudent decisions and then don’t have to suffer the downside of those decisions (and are even rewarded) you encourage more of that behavior in the future. This applies to the lenders, too. Those of them who broke the law should be prosecuted to it’ fullest extent. Why? 1) they choose to break the law and 2) if we give them a pass we encourage to similarly break the law in the future. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/105 "2008-09-25T15:53:27Z")
Sales resistance, that is the key. The repubs are selling a high pressure takeover of the economy ,beyond any previous limits. If this board is representative, the people are buying it. There are red flags and lights flashing and blinking, but we are going full speed ahead. We all suffer when these thieves get the power. This bailout does not bailout the home buyers. It bails out the companies that first made a fortune buying collections of mortgages, then lost when they were revealed to have too many bad ones mixed in. The bill gives Paulson the right to turn over money to any institution ,any amount he sees fit. It does not save the horrible nasty person who got talked into a mortgage he could not afford. They will burn ,so you can sleep better now. He also has the right to bailout foreign banks. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/106 "2008-09-25T15:53:59Z")
It’s like talking to a brick wall. The words **deceptive** and **hidden** and **predatory** have no meaning to you. I’m done. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/107 "2008-09-25T16:18:37Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > It’s like talking to a brick wall. The words **deceptive** and **hidden** and **predatory** have no meaning to you. > > I’m done. As tickled as I may be with the last line, why don’t you tell me about these words you highlight. Would you call some used car dealers deceptive? But if they act within the law and you get taken in, do you expect to get bailed out? In my book, much advertising, particularly of the financial variety is deceptive. I get solicitations for credit cards with 0% balance transfer rates. But if you look at it closely, that for a limited time, then the rate can shoot up to 8, 10, 12 17%. Deceptive? Yes. Do I expect someone to bail me out if I jump at the offer without reading all the fine print? No. Hidden? You’ll have to explain that to me. Hidden, as in unfindable? Somehow I think not. Predatory? Again, I’ll let you define it. My guess is that you’re talking about lenders actively seeking out customers with low incomes. People who would now qualify for loans with the reduced criteria. So, first people scream about low income people not being able to get loans. The the rules are relaxed and those people will now qualify and a lender does that horrible thing of letting those people know they may now qualify for a home loan by advertising that fact. If you have a different take on it, I’d love to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/108 "2008-09-25T16:23:02Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Sales resistance, that is the key. The repubs are selling a high pressure takeover of the economy ,beyond any previous limits. If this board is representative, the people are buying it. There are red flags and lights flashing and blinking, but we are going full speed ahead. We all suffer when these thieves get the power. > This bailout does not bailout the home buyers. It bails out the companies that first made a fortune buying collections of mortgages, then lost when they were revealed to have too many bad ones mixed in. The bill gives Paulson the right to turn over money to any institution ,any amount he sees fit. It does not save the horrible nasty person who got talked into a mortgage he could not afford. They will burn ,so you can sleep better now. He also has the right to bailout foreign banks. It is my understanding that it also gives judges the power to reduce loan principle amounts, or interest rates. And why do you characterize these people as being “nasty”? I’m sure you’re being sarcastic, but that is not my opinion of them. Some were dumb, some greedy, some, most I’d say, simply imprudent. And as much as my heart might go out to someone who is about to lose a home, that doesn’t mean I have responsibility to bail them out. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/109 "2008-09-25T16:52:44Z")
Looks like this is turning into a 2 person fight, but FWIW for the first and last time ever, I agree with **Magellan01**. When making decisions involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, potential retirements, etc. you need to make sure you understand exactly what is going on. And it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that free money doesn’t come out of the air. This is the same phenomena as massive credit card debt, just on a larger scale. People want lifestyles they can’t afford, find something that makes that possible, and then are shocked when they learn that you can’t live a lifestyle you can’t afford for that long and the consequences really suck. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/110 "2008-09-25T17:29:31Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Looks like this is turning into a 2 person fight, but FWIW for the first and last time ever, I agree with **Magellan01**. Yes, I know, I’ve heard it before. But don’t fight it. Let the warmth of right and righteousness wash over you. Accept truth… Come…come… Tis a better place. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/111 "2008-09-25T20:06:46Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Another interesting perspective, and piece of the puzzle. Former (shamed) New York Governor, Elliott Spitzer, wrote and Op Ed a month before the fact that he was employing hookers forced him to resign. The OCC [responds](http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-16.htm): > [@](#): > > _WASHINGTON — Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan issued the following statement today, responding to comments from New York Governor Eliot Spitzer:_ > > Almost everyone who has paid attention to the subprime lending crisis has concluded that OCC-regulated national banks were not the problem. Instead, the worst abuses came from loans originated by state-licensed mortgage brokers and lenders that are exclusively the responsibility of state regulators. > > However, comments from today assert that the OCC and national bank preemption have prevented the states from taking action against predatory or abusive lenders. That’s just plain wrong. > > The OCC extensively regulates the activities of national banks, including mortgage lending. The OCC established strong protections against predatory lending practices years ago, and has applied those standards through examinations of every national bank. As a result, predatory mortgage lenders have avoided national banks like the plague. The abuses consumers have complained about most — such as loan flipping and equity stripping — are not tolerated in the national banking system. And the looser lending practices of the subprime market simply have not gravitated to national banks: They originated just 10% of subprime loans in 2006, when underwriting standards were weakest, and delinquency rates on those loans are well below the national average. > > Nothing the OCC has done has prevented the states from regulating and preventing abuses among the lenders that they license – lenders that are the source of most of today’s problems. The states have ample authority – as well as clear responsibility – to set standards for these lenders and enforce them. It defies logic to argue that preemption was an impediment. National banks are bound to obey the strict standards enforced by the OCC everywhere they operate – even in states that had far less rigorous standards. The states should have applied equally rigorous standards to the non-bank lenders that were responsible for the bulk of the problems. Doesn’t quite sound like what noted self-promoter Eliot Spitzer described, does it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/112 "2008-09-25T20:18:59Z")
This is a self-exonerating rebuttal. Whether it is based on fact or not is another question. Did you expect a _mea fuckup_? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/113 "2008-09-25T20:20:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > …Come…come… Tis a better place. > 😉 Well, its a _simpler_ place, I’ll grant that much. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/114 "2008-09-25T20:29:52Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > The OCC [responds](http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-16.htm): > Doesn’t quite sound like what noted self-promoter Eliot Spitzer described, does it? Riiiiiiiight. That’s why **“. . . all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.”** Elliot Spitzer aside, how do you account for the other 49 states’ attorneys general and banking superintendents trying to fight this crap? Were they aaaaaaall “self-promoters”? Or do you think it’s more likely that the OCC is just conveniently covering its ass? Fifty against one. Are you really implying that the one is right and all of the 50 are wrong or liars? ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/115 "2008-09-25T20:53:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > This is a self-exonerating rebuttal. So? It was a self-aggrandising accusation. If you’re going to disqualify people from defending themselves on the grounds that they are, um, defending themselves, then essentially every accusation must be taken at face value. Right? How about addressing the factual assertions of the Comptroller? Say, for example, his point about his office being responsible only for national banks, or how said banks were responsible for just 10% of the subprime loans, or how said 10% were better performing than those issued by state-regulated lenders? I mean, all of those claims should be checkable, right? It’s rather notable that literally nowhere in Eliot Spitzer’s article does he make a distinction between national and state lenders; rather a glaring omission, don’t you think, given that he’s writing an article about national vs. state regulation? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/116 "2008-09-25T23:35:23Z")
This thread is a misnomer. It is not a mortgage bailout. It is a bailout of huge banks that bought up bad loans. It is mismanagement. It is greed. That is what we are saving. The problem remains. There are a lot of homes yet to be foreclosed. Magellan will be pleased that they will be tossed in the street. We will however save the wealthy. That is good. All is well. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/117 "2008-09-26T01:21:10Z")
The Chinese government had suspended Chinese banks from lending money to American banks because it is too risky. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/118 "2008-09-26T02:45:51Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > This thread is a misnomer. It is not a mortgage bailout. It is a bailout of huge banks that bought up bad loans. It is mismanagement. It is greed. That is what we are saving. The problem remains. There are a lot of homes yet to be foreclosed. Magellan will be pleased that they will be tossed in the street. We will however save the wealthy. That is good. All is well. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you know what pleases me? Let me help you. It doesn’t please me that you misconstrue my position, but knock yourself out. And it doesn’t please me that ANYONE lose their home. But if someone made an unwise decision and bit off more house than they could afford, and then reality descends upon them and they can’t, in fact, afford the home, I prefer they take the hit as opposed to me, or the public at large. What part of people taking responsibility for their decisions do you find so difficult to comprehend? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/119 "2008-09-26T02:52:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you know what pleases me? Let me help you. It doesn’t please me that you misconstrue my position, but knock yourself out. And it doesn’t please me that ANYONE lose their home. But if someone made an unwise decision and bit off more house than they could afford, and then reality descends upon them and they can’t, in fact, afford the home, I prefer they take the hit as opposed to me, or the public at large. What part of people taking responsibility for their decisions do you find so difficult to comprehend? I imagine it’s the part where Wall Street apparently doesn’t have to take responsibility for _their_ decisions. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505/120 "2008-09-26T02:58:00Z")
The bankers make multi billion dollar errors and we rush in to save them. The bailout saves them. Only them. People losing their houses still will get what they deserve. They and their kids can buy a tent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mortgage-bailout/464505.md?page=7)