How exactly are we going to get paid back by keeping people in homes they couldn't afford in the first place? At least with the financial industry, it will be considered a loan, on the personal level, it will be a gift.

To understand how people will stay in these homes, we have to understand that many of them are locked into loan terms that are unfavorable. Whether through envy (keeping up with the jones's), incompetence, ignorance, or plain ol stupidity many people entered into loans whose rates have gone up as a part of the loan agreement. Then you have people who could outright not afford these homes. The former should get the ability to refinance into terms they can afford, thus paying off the amount they borrowed. The latter should, and most likely will, foreclose. The whole idea of the exercise is to limit foreclosures, which in turn keeps the market values of homes from sliding too far, which in turn gives us value for what we are buying.

I never said all Americans were lazy and under achievers, we just have the highest level of losers at the lowest end of our society. America is the greatest nation in the world providing opportunities for everyone, that is why we have the highest rate of immigration, legal, or illegal. There is no excuse.

Why is it you think we have the highest level of losers at the lowest end of the socio-economic spectrum ?? (If you say social engineering, please provide examples so that we may discuss them individually)

We do need to fix the problem, and again, identifying the root cause of the social engineered BS from the liberal left.

OK, so here you once again find the need to finger point. If you think social engineering projects are bad, lets focus on that, instead of who initiated them. These types of projects could come from either side of the aisle, and so it behooves us to understand them fully. Tagging failed policy with a particular party, and assuming that the other party represents the opposite, are dangerous assumptions.
And I would argue that the current financial mess that we are in is not the result of lazy, greedy, or envious consumers. Nor is it the result of the social engineering boogey man that you keep trotting out. But banks who gave loans to people who could not afford them. The idea of home ownership is a core ideal of the American dream, is it not ?? For many they saw the dream within reach and went for it. The banks were the more financially savvy party in the transaction and so the impetus lies on them to make sure the borrower is, at the time of the loan, financially capable of paying the loan back. Personally, I had to bring proof of my annual income to my mortgage broker, who then told me what I could expect to be able to get from the banks. Instead what we had with this mess is banks giving out money with no proof of income knowing that they could sell off this bad debt to an over eager wall street. Let me ask you this, would you be happy with a doctor that gave you advice or medicine that was bad for you ?? Would you expect the average consumer to be medically savvy enough to know the difference ??

My parents, including myself, have seen difficult financial times in our lives, and the solution my parents taught me was to do whatever it takes to make it right. My father when I was a little boy, had to hitch hike 20 miles in each direction just to make it to work each day, because my parents couldn't afford to put gas in the car. I worked 3 jobs back in the 70's to make sure I kept my home, and put food on the table for my family, which also allowed my wife to stay home and raise our children.

That's a touching story, and kudos to you and your father for doing what was necessary to make ends meet. But let me ask you this, when you went to buy your home, were you required to bring proof of income ?? How about a down payment requirement ?? How about your father, were any requirements placed on him in order to secure a loan ??

Today's liberal thought is, "oh well, f**k it, I'll just file bankruptcy". I guess that's no big deal for liberal thinkers. Personal responsibility is everything.

There you go again with the finger pointing. Everyone who faces financial crisis these days is liberal thinking ?? Everyone who will be filing for bankruptcy in the near future thinks liberally ?? I agree that personal responsibility is everything, and I also agree that it's a quality in short supply these days, but to attribute it to either liberal or conservative is lazy thinking. How about our consumer culture that places so much focus on instant gratification ?? I would argue that is a mindset fostered by ALL businesses in order to do more business. Einstein wrote a very enlightening essay about how in order for capitalism to continue functioning, it must continually grow economically. The only way to do that is to increase consumption. Einstein the posits that the easiest way to do that is to incite envy in the consumer. Make them jealous of people who have what they don't, so they will go out and buy buy buy. This in turn severs the individuals connection to society and places the focus on the individual. I would argue that this, more than some generalized way of thinking, is responsible for our lack of personal responsibility. And this is only one of many specific causes.

Below is just one story of many, on how liberal thinking will do nothing but exacerbate this social cancer on our society. Pressuring our financial institutions to push loans on people that have no business or means to pay them back, is the root cause for this crisis, and that is stupid liberal thinking.

As for the idiocy going on in Pennsylvania and the fuzzy math grading scheme, I'll leave that for a debate on education. As for "pressuring" our financial institutions into giving bad loans, I would argue with that point. The rules for giving out loans were relaxed to the point that all that was required was a signature. No one faced punitive repercussions for not handing out bad loans. The responsibility for due diligence still rested with the banks. And just in case you are looking to quote your Faux News story guest whose says, and I quote...""Did You Know? Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor’s net worth in class actions." I would say to you and Ms. Liebowitz, read the statue she was quoting. If either of you had taken the time you would have seen that it reads as follows...
"...this regulation is to promote the availability of credit to all creditworthy applicants without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract);"
No one could sue a bank for NOT giving them a loan they COULD NOT repay. The banks knew this, and again there was no pressure, just banks making bad loans they knew to be bad.

-traveler-

__________________
"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum."

-Nada-

For those of you interested in the Eistein essay that I paraphrased in my post above, it can be found in the following book of his essays.
http://http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-O...306247&sr=8-38
A mighty read that I would recommend to all...

-traveler-

__________________
"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum."

-Nada-