Subprime Mortgage Bailout

This is why I mentioned regulation/standardization of the terms and harsh penalties. A standardized one-page document could spell out payments, the max the payment could rise over time, etc.

In my world, ideally this would not involve the govt at all.

-ERD50

You must have been reading my mind. I was going to post the same response, then I saw yours.

While a multi-page document may be needed to cover the finer details, there should be a short summarization that contains all the critical requirements in terms a layman can understand. It seems everywhere we go there is a multi-page document we must sign if we want the service. While people should read and understand everything in the document, they don't because of the volume. The creaters of the documents know this and the less than honest merchants bury the critical information within the volume of paperwork.

While I am normally against big government involvement, there is a place for government intervention and this is one of those times.
 
The most important part of being a US citizen is our right to choose. If the govt starts curtailing my right to choose then I have in fact lost some of my freedom, and not gained more. Even if the mantra of the govt becomes, "We are taking away your right to choose, because WE feel we know better than you, or you might make a bad decision and wreck your life". Does my life not belong to me? Am I not allowed to make bad decisions? Some of the wealthiest people in this country got that way because they were willing to make some large risks to get there. Sure... some lost it all... but others became very wealthy by taking the risk..

So... let's get rid of that FDIC insurance for all deposits... because you can make a great decision on which bank to bank at...

And let's get rid of the rules on plane safety because you can choose which plane is safe and which is not (and oh by the way, you also know which company keeps up with their maintenance)

And let's get rid of that clean water bill, because you know if it is good water coming out of the tap no matter where you are

And let's get rid of that clean air bill, because I want to pollute more and I don't give a crap what I do to your lungs

And let's get rid of all speed limits because I want to choose to drive fast even in a school zone... those little tykes can run fast when I am coming...

Your right to choose many things have been curtailed by government and more will come...

when was the last time you went to Cuba? or smoked a Cuban cigar (sure you can, but you are breaking a law)..

Now, since I have slapped down your all or nothing rant... I do not think there should be a bail out... if the firms were following the truth in lending law, then it has enough information for them to make a decision... they DID gamble on the rates and lost...

However, what I remember the prez suggesting was that is someone QUALIFIED then they could get a fixed rate loan from one of the agencies when now they can not... this would not affect the people who can not pay.. they still lose it all.

BTW, I did read where there were some state/local gvmts that were talking about doing cash payment so people can keep their homes.. now that is scary to me..
 
I am not sure that I see your point Texas Proud. I am certainly not for anarchy in this country. As you rightly point out, there should be laws to protect the quality of water, speeds for safety in school zones etc. What I am saying is that there will never be a time in my life EVER, when somehow the govt will know what is "best" for me. Only I can know what is best for myself. If I choose to eat too much fast food, or buy a fast sports car, or even go bungee jumping for that matter, I should have the right to do so. All of those choices have risk associated with them, and that risk only affects myself. I do not believe there is ever a point where the govt should be able to tell me, "Well... you MIGHT screw this up yourself, so we are not going to allow you to do it". Contrary to popular belief, you do have the right to "fail" in this country because of bad choices that you make. I would hardly call any of what I said an " all or nothing rant". It all seems fairly logical and well thought out to me.
 
I am not sure that I see your point Texas Proud.

Me either.

I think Texas Proud is confusing the fact that we all give up rights and freedoms in order to be a member of society. We can't do whatever we want (pollute, speed, be a public nuisance, etc) because those things impact other people.

But we should be allowed to make our own choices if they don't impact others. One of those choices is to invest in an FDIC insured product, or not.

Doesn't seem like 'all or nothing' to me.

-ERD50
 
I can say my experiences buying huses are not typical. My first two houses were purchased when me and my wife were young. The closing lawyer explained all of the documents clearly. I thought this was somewhat standard, but later found out it isn't.

Houses 3-5 I found the line to sign on and signed it, didn't even look at what I was signing. Now before your opinions of me go lower than they were before I posted this. My wife has worked with mortgages for many, many years in all areas from origination to auditing and when we sat down she looked at all of the documents before me. If she signed, then they were good if she saw any issues, which she didn't, they were handled before I received the paperwork.

With all of this stated, up until recently she has not seen any instances of questionable practices on the part of the originators. The ones that were detected were quickly weeded out, the originator fired, and the loan package closed. Notice I said originator, meaning there has been one originator who has submitted questionable loans. This does not mean it does not occur more frequently, but she has worked with a total of over 1,000 originators and only one has submitted anything questionable enough to be fired. She has on the other hand seen numerous "liar loans" come in that were obviously inflated. It is impossible to tell who was lying. Since the buyer is supposed to fill out the application and sign it, it would seem the applicant is attempting the fraud.
 
This has been a really interesting read so far. I never would have thought there would have been that many divergant opinions. But I am learning how others see the world and that is always a good thing. I think I would have to completely agree with ERD50.
The most important part of being a US citizen is our right to choose. If the govt starts curtailing my right to choose then I have in fact lost some of my freedom, and not gained more. Even if the mantra of the govt becomes, "We are taking away your right to choose, because WE feel we know better than you, or you might make a bad decision and wreck your life". Does my life not belong to me? Am I not allowed to make bad decisions? Some of the wealthiest people in this country got that way because they were willing to make some large risks to get there. Sure... some lost it all... but others became very wealthy by taking the risk.
I also have to question FarmerEd's premise about people getting "screwed over". If you want to make the claim that most folks are just not intelligent enough to make their own decisions in life, then why not commit them all to an institution and be done with it? I believe that most people are fully able to take control of their lives, and that even the man with the most basic knowledge and skills should know enough to ask questions when they do not understand something. I condsider myself fairly inteligent, but I still ask questions all the time and find no shame in it at all. The only way that anyone in america can get "screwed over" by anyone else, is if their was some form of fraud involved, or if they did not pay attention to what was happening. To my undertanding the Banking system got just as "screwed" as the people themselves.
Then again... there are those who believe that theft of $5 from a weathy man is not the same as theft from a poor person. Because the weathy person can "afford" it. New wealth is created in the US all the time where there was none before. For me to make $100 does not mean that I had to "steal" $1 from 100 people to do it.

Let me see if I understand your premise -- none of is free unless every one of us is free to starve to death in the street. Is that close?

Lovely world view you have.
 
It is the mantra of the Republican party these days..."I'm looking out for number one and screw everyone else." Funny how most of these wackos go to church on Sunday and believe themselves good Christians too....

Yeah, especially Leiberman.
 
Let me see if I understand your premise -- none of is free unless every one of us is free to starve to death in the street. Is that close?

Lovely world view you have.

Well that is a pretty harsh interpretation there Gumby, but you know what? Yes, within the context of the original post, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying!

And you know what else? I submit that the 'no-bail-out' approach is LESS HARSH than your 'bail-out' approach. So I could turn the phrase back at 'ya: Lovely world view YOU have, Gumby.

OK, I'll explain:

Remember, the people we are talking about are mortgage applicants. They are buying a home. That should mean that they hold a job, and probably not a minimum wage job. That does not make them rocket scientists, but let's give them SOME credit (no pun intended). I don't think we are talking about a segment of the population that is unable to care for themselves and in need of social services, etc. So, we should be able to expect that they can understand simple terms like 'monthly payment', 'can increase', 'limit', 'time', 'late fee', 'your income', 'consequences for non-payment', 're-posses'. And if they don't understand it, as was explained above, the 'Dummies' book and most sources say: 'get a lawyer'.

When I'm in over my head, I get help. You can be pretty dim, yet still be smart enough to understand THAT. It's not a tough concept.

So back to your statement: Yes, if someone is capable of supporting themselves, and they choose not too, they can starve in the street. That IS freedom. Freedom is choice, and Freedom comes with responsibility. These people chose these mortgages, they need to face the consequences.

However, I do have a 'heart': If someone is unable to support themselves, some sort of social service support should be there for them. They can even take some of my tax money for that (sorry to disappoint you).

It seems that you are saying that when someone chooses a 'short cut' or the 'easy way out' and then it back fires on them, the rest of us tax payers, the ones that took a prudent approach and have some money, should pay for their choices/mistakes. No thanks. And here is why I think that a 'bail-out' is a CRUEL world view:

Have you ever seen what happens when someone gets bailed out from every bad judgment they make? They keep making them. And it gets worse and worse over time. Simply because, they aren't really 'mistakes' if there are no consequences. Those people often go on to ruin their lives. I've seen it up close and personal. I don't want that to become national policy.

I'd rather see someone get a few bumps and bruises, and learn for themselves that maybe they need to modify their risky behavior. Protect them from everything, and they will go on to kill themselves, and maybe take some innocent people along with them. Whether you realize it or not, that is the world that YOU are asking for.

Remember 'You can't cheat an honest man' - those people were looking for the easy way out. Most of them didn't get any more 'cheated' than the 'cheating' they were looking to pull.

For the sake of completeness (and since I long ago blew any chance for 'succinct'), I'll repeat my earlier post. If any of those lenders are guilty of miss-representation, with-holding info, fraud, etc - prosecute them, harshly. Give the people their money/homes back, plus treble damages in those cases.

-ERD50

PS: (edit/add) - I just took a 'succinct pill': Get off the 'holier than thou' soapbox, Gumby!
 
Last edited:
Let me see if I understand your premise -- none of is free unless every one of us is free to starve to death in the street. Is that close?

Lovely world view you have.

Yes Gumby... that is preciesly what I believe. But let me examine the opposite of what you are saying I believe in. Obviously if my thinking is completely wrong, then the opposite of that should be your point of view. By your reasoning that would mean " Are all of us are free, when none of us can starve to death on the street?" There is one and only one form of government on earth that can allow that statement to become a reality. And that government would be communist. If you do not believe me, then you are free to look up what a communist government believes in. In such a society, no one is rich, or poor, your basic needs like food and shelter are provided for you. And you will probably never "starve to death on the street" as you have put it. Then again, I doubt hightly it is a life that you would choose to have. Because no matter how much you work or try to succeed in such a society, you would never be "allowed" (by the govt) to have more than your neighbor.

Thanks for the kind words ERD50.... made my day.. :)
 
Sorry Armor99 and ERD50; I was feeling particularly snarky when I wrote that. Just in case you were wondering, I am on record on this board as opposing a "bail out". Among other things, I think it would encourage continued irresponsible speculation by those who should know better. (similar to the effect of the "Greenspan put" on Wall Street).

You guys are obviously intelligent, financially sophisticated and careful. You paid attention in school, followed the rules, worked hard and succeeded. All of which may make it more difficult for you to believe that there really are people who go through life heavy laden by naivete and a simple lack of mental capacity. Similarly, there are people who lack impulse control and any real foresight. We may regret that this is the case, but we cannot deny that it is true.

Are some of the people in trouble now the victims of their own greed and unbridled optimism? Undoubtedly. For them, I have no pity. However, there are many who were simply not smart enough or sophisticated enough to understand what they were doing. Add in overbearing mortgage brokers who get paid to close the loan no matter what and loan documents that are confusing at best and deliberately misleading at worst, and you have a recipe for disaster. It's easy enough to say "well, they should know enough to call a lawyer". But some of these people are not even smart enough to do that, and they could not afford to pay one even if they did know enough to call. Simply put, you have a number of people who were led down the garden path and did not know any better.

Probably, many of these people are not suited to be homeowners and should simply go back to renting what they can afford. But I'm sure you can appreciate that the idea of having a place to call your own was a powerful incentive for them and not a dishonorable one. Perhaps just a little more understanding and a little less condemnation would be in order. To the extent that we can find some way to help, short of an outright bail out, I think we should. And for practical reasons, I think many banks would prefer to restructure and keep a performing loan rather than foreclosing. If government action can encourage that trend, it should be taken.

Finally, I don't think either of you would want to live in a land of unbridled freedom to win or lose; one where, if you are not smart enough or careful enough to make the right decisions, you might well end up starving in the street. I know I would not want to live there. However, it is a far cry from my asking that there be some minimum support network to my advocating communism. And I think you know that.
 
I've been trying to ballpark how many of those people were led to buy homes they simply couldn't afford.

In CA, homeownership rates went from 55% in 1996 to 60% in 2005. CA population is about 36M. So, that suggests maybe 2 million new homeowners who might not have been homeowners in the old days. Even half that would be scary.

Similar story across the country: rate went from about 65% to 69% nationwide in the last few years.

So, what's the right thing to do for potentially millions of people who bought more house than they can afford? I'd really like to know the magnitude and potential costs of a true bailout.
 
I am not sure that I see your point Texas Proud. I am certainly not for anarchy in this country. As you rightly point out, there should be laws to protect the quality of water, speeds for safety in school zones etc. What I am saying is that there will never be a time in my life EVER, when somehow the govt will know what is "best" for me. Only I can know what is best for myself. If I choose to eat too much fast food, or buy a fast sports car, or even go bungee jumping for that matter, I should have the right to do so. All of those choices have risk associated with them, and that risk only affects myself. I do not believe there is ever a point where the govt should be able to tell me, "Well... you MIGHT screw this up yourself, so we are not going to allow you to do it". Contrary to popular belief, you do have the right to "fail" in this country because of bad choices that you make. I would hardly call any of what I said an " all or nothing rant". It all seems fairly logical and well thought out to me.

You did not limit your 'right to choose' to anything... Just that govmt should not stop you from choosing... and I pointed out many things that you do not have the right to choose, for your benefit...

How many states have motorcycle helmet laws?? You do not have the right to choose to ride without one (in those states) because if you crash and crack your head open, we usually have to pay if you don't kill yourself..

Now, don't get me wrong.. I do NOT think they should bail anyone out for making a bad decision on buying a house (or anything else for that matter) IF they were not lied to or defrauded..

there are many people who buy to much car or TV or everything... why not bail them out also... why is a house different? I don't think it is..
 
Sorry Armor99 and ERD50; I was feeling particularly snarky when I wrote that. Just in case you were wondering, I am on record on this board as opposing a "bail out". Among other things, I think it would encourage continued irresponsible speculation by those who should know better. (similar to the effect of the "Greenspan put" on Wall Street).

Finally, I don't think either of you would want to live in a land of unbridled freedom to win or lose; one where, if you are not smart enough or careful enough to make the right decisions, you might well end up starving in the street.

Well thanks Gumby... from what I have read above you are obviously a highly educated man in your own right, and I understand that sometimes we all get a bit heated. (myself included).
I also did not want anyone to get the idea that I am a completely heartless human being either. I really do get the fact that there are those who are just not very bright out there, and truly did not "know enough" to get help when they needed it. I would hope that their familes, friends or loved ones, would try to interviene on their behalf (not to control them), but perhaps inject a voice of reason to what they are about to do. I believe in trying to persuade people to your way of thinking, rather than forcing them to do something they do not want to do. The choice should always ultimately be theirs.
I have read over your thoughts Gumby and I must admit... you make a very compelling arguement, but I still think I will have to agree to disagree with you. Why should anyone be entitled to more than what their own mind or skill can get for themselves? I believe that highly intelligent, or highly skilled people (such as actors or athletes) should make more money than the average man. Why:confused: because they can do things that the average man cannot do. As much as it might seem like a good idea to try to save people from themselves, ultimately it is a loosing battle. Because the very learning process itself sometimes demands failure as the teaching tool. Sometimes small children need to touch a hot stove and get burned no matter how many times the mother and father yell "No!!! Hot... do not touch that".
Strangely enough... I really do believe that I "live in a land of unbridled freedom to win or lose". As a matter of fact I think that is the only sort of life worth living. That is even why I joined this forum in the first place. I know that I can get fired at any time, get a bad disease, have something financially bad happen to me through no fault of my own, etc. So do I sit in a cave and worry about it happening? No!!! I take all of the steps that I possibly can to safeguard myself as much a possible. To me, that means accumulating as much wealth as I can. This is not greed either, it is self preservation. I have a moral right to try to take care of myself the best that I am able to. I try to calculate the risk in all of my financial decsions... and I think the thing that keeps those decisions in check, is the knowledge that if I do the wrong thing.. I can really hurt myself financially. A trapeeze performer will usually perform less dangerous stunts if he has no net. I live my whole life under the concept of "if I fail... there is NO net to catch me". Sometimes I think that if everyone lived their lives that way we would all tend to make better choices...
 
Last edited:
Its not clear that any bailout would work, at least for more than a portion of the troubled borrowers. What is likely to happen is a combination of things: some borrowers will default and lose their homes, some will get help from a gummint program, and some will get their loans modified to terms they can live with.

What interests me is more what regulations come out of all of this mess. Banks and thrifts (i.e. actual depository institutions) have been effectively precluded from doing the truly stupid loans for some time. Most of the bad actors are non-depositories taht are acting outside of the reach of teh bank regulators. I suspect that Congress and others will take a stab at imposing regulation on the non-bank lenders, but it isn't clear what will actually come of such efforts. Will be interesting to watch.
 
I live my whole life under the concept of "if I fail... there is NO net to catch me". Sometimes I think that if everyone lived their lives that way we would all tend to make better choices...

Me too Armor, but I suspect that we, and others on this board, are the exceptions.

One trap that many successful people fall into (myself included) is the belief that we enjoy a successful and happy life entirely as a consequence of our own merit. We are intelligent, have worked hard and made wise decisions. Therefore, we are richly deserving of all we have.

However comforting this thought is, it does not bear up to close scrutiny. The fact that I live healthy, happy and comfortable today is due to the intelligence, work and sacrifice of thousands of men and women (both known and unknown) who have gone before me.

For example, nearly 231 years ago, a ragtag band of mostly teenagers, led by a Virginia planter named Washington, huddled in the forests of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. They were the remnants of a defeated and fleeing Continental Army. Thousands of their comrades had given up hope and gone home. Yet they persevered. Drawing on their very last reserves of hope and strength, they crossed the Delaware River and attacked the Hessians in Trenton, thereby keeping the American Revolution alive and ensuring that I would one day be able to live in the freest and best country in the world. 168 years later, men braver than I have ever been or will ever be stormed the beaches of Normandy to defend that freedom against Hitler's evil. Their sacrifice made our world possible.

Similarly, I did not die of a childhood disease because men and women far more intelligent than me devoted their lives to finding vaccines against and cures for those diseases. Others, all of whom were more talented and hard working than me, discovered electricity, invented refrigeration, the automobile, the airplane, the computer and the internet. All the wonders of modern technology that enable me to work, travel and play were developed by someone else.

Incredibly clever Renaissance Italian bankers developed methods of banking that benefit me to this day. As a direct result of their efforts, I can write a check, use credit, and deposit money in one place and take it out in another. The concept of the mutual fund, which has benefitted me greatly, was developed by yet another genius.

In short, most of what I have today was made possible by the efforts of people who were smarter, harder working, more dedicated, and braver than me. My own contribution pales by comparison

In the Bible, one of Jesus' parables concerns certain workers in a vineyard (even if you are not Christian, please bear with me -- this is not about religion at all). It goes like this (Matthew 20:1-16):

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right." So they went. He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'
'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.

He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'


When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.' The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

This parable is most often used to show that God loves us all equally, the church ladies who attend every Sunday no more and no less than the tattooed motorcycle guy riding by outside.

But the most interesting thing about the parable is this -- when most people first hear or read it (including me), they are outraged by the landowner's conduct. That is because everyone sees themselves as the early morning workers, who have worked hard all day. No one identifies himself or herself with one of those eleventh hour people, who got the same treatment for so much less work.

Similarly, when people read that libertarian stalwart, Atlas Shrugged, they always identify with John Galt and the "individuals of the mind". They are never one of the "looters and moochers".

I respectfully suggest that none of us was born into a state of nature such that we can claim credit for everything we have today. Each of us stands on the shoulders of countless others who have gone before, and each of us is dependent, whether we admit it or not, on the efforts of many, many others who live among us today. As John Donne once wrote

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece
of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by
the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's
death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for
thee.


This, then, is the pernicious heart of libertarianism -- the belief that all we have and all we are can be attributed to our own intelligence and our own efforts. Such thinking at best leads us an inflated sense of self that devalues the lives and contributions of others. In its most virulent form, it can also make us heartless and cold.

Personally, I hope for better.
 
Last edited:
I've got to run, just wanted to chime in and say it is good to see this thread coming together from the divisive turn it was taking.

Often, people's beliefs really are not as different as they might first appear. Once they engage, they learn they have more in common than they thought.

Very interesting dynamics at work, IMO.


-ERD50
 
Gumby....

Very good posts... and much better than what I was writing, but the point I was trying to make...

But I think almost all of us are in agreement that there should not be government money to bail out the homeowners... yes, they bailed out the depositors during the S&L crisis, but the 'owners' lost everything... and there were MANY people who lost their homes, and homes took a beating, but they came back in time...

And would it not help out the economy more in the long run if there were a lot of people who lost their homes and made more houses 'affordable' to the people who can really afford them??
 
Gumby....

Very good posts... and much better than what I was writing, but the point I was trying to make...

But I think almost all of us are in agreement that there should not be government money to bail out the homeowners... yes, they bailed out the depositors during the S&L crisis, but the 'owners' lost everything... and there were MANY people who lost their homes, and homes took a beating, but they came back in time...
Ditto the good post Gumby. And I agree with Texas that homeowners should not be bailed out - certainly not in the sense of some taxpayer handout. But I am still POd that we same taxpayers may have to bail out the people who dreamed up NINJA loans and the like to protect the overall economy. Regulating these industries to a degree to prevent them from F'ing things up for the rest of us and costing us taxpayer money is no different than regulating planes or requiring FDIC insurance (was that your earlier post Texas?).
 
Gumby-- That was a good post. I would have to somewhat disagree. You are correct in that people before us have done things that make our success possible. I feel however that those accomplishments make it possible for all of society to be successful not the person specifically. It is our own knowledge, skills, abilities, and desires that make us successful. As far as I know there are no laws/regulations/policies that restrict one person form using the system you pointed out in America. While I am grateful that I was born in America where the benefits you describe are readily available, especially when compared to some other countries. I think to say we are not the products of our own desires and abilities is a little short of reality.

I've seen crack addicts realize the road they were on was going nowhere fast and kick the habit. These same people go on to become successful leaders in the community. I've also seen other crack addicts stay the course and are dead within a few years from their drug use. Each of these groups have the same access to the system you describe, yet one failed while the other succeeded. The only difference was the people not the system.
 
I swear by my life and my love of it
that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for mine. - John Galt "Atlas Shrugged"

You perception of me is quite right. I am in fact reading Atas Shrugged right now. Although I refuse to be labeled as "libertarian" or "conservative" or anything else for that matter. I think the above quote is really what is at the heart of it. We should help each other if we choose to, if we want to. I do not believe in government forced charity or income re-distribution. Charity under threat of force is called extortion. And while I do agree with you that there are millions of people that have lived, or invented things that make my life easier, it is only I that can make use of those tools. Such is the power of the individual mind. There is no such thing as a group mind, or group decisions. There is only the power of a single man with a single mind, that can decide what direction his life will take. I do not believe in fate, or destiny, or the claim that "everything will turn out all right in the end" without me doing anything to ensure it happens. And all of this brings me back to the original topic here of govt bailouts etc. If you believe like I do, that your life belongs to you and to no one else, then by default you also believe that the negative things that happen to you in life (such as inability to pay mortgages) was in large part caused by yourself, and some bad decisions that you made. If you believe that your life does not belong just to you, but that lives are collectively owned (sometimes called a "social contract") by others, then you surrender part of what happens to you over to those other people. While I can respect that point of view, it is not the sort of life that I wish to live.
Ok... sorry if this posting thread has gotten a bit off track and a bit too much into philosophy. although some would argue that your philosphy guides all of your decisions, like wanting to retire early! :) Thanks again to all who were kind enough to share their views. Kudos to all... and malice towards none... :)
 
I swear by my life and my love of it
that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for mine. - John Galt "Atlas Shrugged"

You perception of me is quite right. I am in fact reading Atas Shrugged right now. Although I refuse to be labeled as "libertarian" or "conservative" or anything else for that matter. I think the above quote is really what is at the heart of it. We should help each other if we choose to, if we want to. I do not believe in government forced charity or income re-distribution. Charity under threat of force is called extortion. And while I do agree with you that there are millions of people that have lived, or invented things that make my life easier, it is only I that can make use of those tools. Such is the power of the individual mind. There is no such thing as a group mind, or group decisions. There is only the power of a single man with a single mind, that can decide what direction his life will take. I do not believe in fate, or destiny, or the claim that "everything will turn out all right in the end" without me doing anything to ensure it happens. And all of this brings me back to the original topic here of govt bailouts etc. If you believe like I do, that your life belongs to you and to no one else, then by default you also believe that the negative things that happen to you in life (such as inability to pay mortgages) was in large part caused by yourself, and some bad decisions that you made. If you believe that your life does not belong just to you, but that lives are collectively owned (sometimes called a "social contract") by others, then you surrender part of what happens to you over to those other people. While I can respect that point of view, it is not the sort of life that I wish to live.
Ok... sorry if this posting thread has gotten a bit off track and a bit too much into philosophy. although some would argue that your philosphy guides all of your decisions, like wanting to retire early! :) Thanks again to all who were kind enough to share their views. Kudos to all... and malice towards none... :)

Seems to me that there is not a whole lot of room for compassion for one's fellow man in such a world. You are welcome to live there on your own.
 
Seems to me that there is not a whole lot of room for compassion for one's fellow man in such a world. You are welcome to live there on your own.

Brewer, I don't think you are completely thinking this through.

On the surface, yes, it sounds like 'who cares about the other guy'. But what is being said is: 'letting people learn from their mistakes IS the kindest approach (over the long run)'.

Go back and read some of the earlier posts. Plenty of examples were given where well-intentioned protection just enables people to go on and do some real damage. To my thinking, over-protection IS the LEAST compassionate approach.

You are free to disagree of course, but it would be interesting to see you back up your thoughts with some real life examples.

-ERD50
 
Brewer, I don't think you are completely thinking this through.

On the surface, yes, it sounds like 'who cares about the other guy'. But what is being said is: 'letting people learn from their mistakes IS the kindest approach (over the long run)'.

Go back and read some of the earlier posts. Plenty of examples were given where well-intentioned protection just enables people to go on and do some real damage. To my thinking, over-protection IS the LEAST compassionate approach.

You are free to disagree of course, but it would be interesting to see you back up your thoughts with some real life examples.

-ERD50

There is no point in wasting effort trying to convince you guys. You've already decided what you think and will not be budged, so good luck to you. Fortunately, society does not see it that way and we have at least some measure of support for those who don't quite make it in life.
 
There is no point in wasting effort trying to convince you guys.

Honestly brewer, it does not appear to me that you have expended ANY effort trying to convince us. I looked back at your posts, and they boil down to 'you (anti-bail-out) guys are wrong, and heartless'. That may be your belief, but it takes more than a statement of one's belief to convince someone else.

You've already decided what you think and will not be budged, so good luck to you.
From this side of the road, that is how you appear to me. You have not even offered up an explanation of why your world is better, or refuted our explanations.

Fortunately, society does not see it that way and we have at least some measure of support for those who don't quite make it in life.
Well maybe there is a simpler answer here. Maybe you just have not been reading the posts. There were quite a few references that people who cannot support themselves should recieve some form of social services. But many of us do not agree that someone that made a bad financial decision should be bailed out.

'I am right and you are wrong' really does not advance the discussion, as far as I can tell.

-ERD50
 
Back
Top Bottom