Liberals are as good at picking "victims" as Obama is vetting potential cabinet members.

Popcorn?

Great post, especially this:

The courts, the banks, and the real estate market are already equipped to handle the Donna Hanks' and Minta Garcias of the world. That's what bankruptcy, foreclosure, and auctions are for. There is simply no reason for taxpayer dollars to be involved.

That should be repeated, ad nauseam, to anyone that thinks subsidizing these reckless clowns--with our tax dollars--is a reasonable course of action.

Point being as long as WJZ is with Barry on this, or even too lazy to go get the facts, he'll skate. How many people read this blog, or Michelles for that matter, and how many get their news from hacks like like the staff at WJZ.

(For that matter, how could a bank be so stupid as to approve such a loan?)
...
And it's not the bank's fault, either.

It isn't? Didn't you just say they were "stupid"? Yes it is their fault, at least partially. You're quick to condemn the homeowner for trying to extend herself and make a buck, but you excuse the bank for doing exactly the same thing.

But bailing out irresponsible people who knowingly bought more house than they could afford, or who used home equity as an ATM to fund reckless spending, is another matter entirely.

What about bailing out irresponsible banks who knowingly sold more loans than they knew they could afford? Even if you believe that the banks didn't deceive the homeowners, you at least must concede that the banks knew the homeowners would likely default. The banks took the chance, and they lost too.

All of this is to say that if you're going to favor bailing out the banks for failed gambles, then you should have no problem with bailing out the homeowners, too.

Of course, you might favor letting the banks AND homeowners go bankrupt, which would be a different argument.

Brian demonstrates how the left never sees a lack of personal responsibility. All are victims. Of course, banks do want to make money, I believe that is why they are in business. ww

Brian, Here, let me fix this for you:
"What about bailing out irresponsible banks who were forced by the government to knowingly sell more loans than they knew they could afford?"

"Even if you believe that the banks didn't deceive the homeowners, you at least must concede that the banks knew the homeowners would likely default."

Yes, the banks did, anyone with any business sense knows that loaning money to people with poor credit risks raises your chances of defaults. But when you're a bank and the government says you gotta make stupid loans to people who are going to default, or we won't approve your (merger, services, etc) plans, then I don't blame the banks for making stupid loans to people. Especially when the government also says we'll back those stupid loans through Fannie and Freddie.

Brian...this lady lives in Maryland...all levels of government are run by liberal Democrats...it should be a utopia here...but this state is broke, corrupt, crime ridden...and no relief in sight...

This piece of garbage shows exactly the bullshit fluff pieces that are trying to generate sympathy and agreement to what happens. If you can't see that, go help that self-serving piece of crap...ya...didn't think you would be inclined to...

There is simply no reason for taxpayer dollars to be involved.

That sentiment is the flaw in that whole line of reasoning. Because the government guaranteed many of these home loans through the VA or FHA the taxpayers' dollars ARE involved. Even if the loan wasn't guaranteed directly by the government, if the mortgage holder has been or will be bailed out, the taxpayers' dollars ARE involve. It's already too late for taxpayers to not be involved.

Allowing the property to be foreclosed means a loss for taxpayers. Finding a way for people to refinance SAVES taxpayers money. Even taking a partial loss by marking down the mortgage to market value SAVES taxpayers money.

The more homes that go into foreclosure the lower the value of all our homes. If someone gets laid off and can't make their mortgage payment they can't even sell their house if the market value is less than the mortgage unless they can pay the difference. Thus, they are forced into foreclosure, not because of something they did, but because they got laid off and the value of their house has dropped below what they owe on it.

The real deadbeats are the ones with underwater mortgages who purchase a second house at a bargain price and finance it under the pretense that they are going to use it as income property. They then move into that house and allow the first house to go into foreclosure. Basically they dump the loss from the first home into the laps of taxpayers while moving into an even better home. Yes, their credit rating takes a hit for a while, but they already have their other mortgage and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars ahead of where they would have been had they stayed with their underwater mortgage.

Bottom line is that anyone who says taxpayers shouldn't be involved doesn't understand that taxpayers got involved in home mortgages more than 50 years ago. Not understanding that fundamental point seems to negate the value of anything else they might say on the subject.

Don't forget Henrietta Hughes and her son Corey!

Brian, Here, let me fix this for you:
"What about bailing out irresponsible banks who were forced by the government to knowingly sell more loans than they knew they could afford?"

Ah, you're one of those uncritical thinkers who buys whatever right-wing myth happens to be floating around. Let me help you with that:

In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. ... In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

Brian demonstrates how the left never sees a lack of personal responsibility.

Gee, Willie, nice to see you're keeping up with your habit of making unfounded statements.

Of course, banks do want to make money, I believe that is why they are in business.

And people want to make money. I believe that is why they have jobs. Did you have an actual point to make?

GarandFan-

Good one!
But Obama promised me ice-cream. I want ice-cream.

What she doesn't tell us is that she owned at least 3 properties from 2006 to 2008. Poor woman.

She has owned a condo at 6001 Arlington #721, Falls Church, VA since 1999.

She purchased 3438 Charles Street, Falls Church, VA on 1/05/05 for $510,000 and sold it on 6/10/08 for $429,000.

Her current home - 1920 N. Dinwiddie Street, Arlington, Va -was purchased with her husband (Luis Guillermo Flores) on 11/16/06 for $800,000.

Looks like they just got greedy. Are these the poor people that we're supposed to help????