Originally Posted by chelsea24

I'm confused. All of you would what? Put people in the streets?

I agree there is a percentage that really bought beyond their means, but there are also people that fell on hard times. My brother-in-law was one of them. He did not live or buy beyond his means. Worked for United Airlines for 26 years before he passed away. United had striped them of everything, lowered salaries, took away pension, etc. My husband had to bail him out. None of this was his doing. None of this was our doing, but we knew we had to help.

Just curious as to what you would do with all these "new" homeless people?

I have three friends as we speak that are in fear of losing their homes. And not one of them bought or lived beyond their means. All lost jobs and in one case, a catastrophic illness.

You should pray everyday that this does not happen to you. You want families with children on the street? Why not have them stay in your spare bedroom as you go out to play golf or sit playing cards in a Rec Center.

What will you do with these people???? Any solutions? Or just whining.

Bad things happen to good people... I know of a highly compensated (at one time) professional who lost EVERYTHING due to a reckless business partner. He and his wife lost their home in forclosure.... there was no govt bailout for them. Are they "living in the streets?" No, they are living in a small 1 bedroom apt... that's what they can afford.

Apparently people are figuring it out.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/18...-mr-president/

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I'm confused. All of you would what? Put people in the streets?

I agree there is a percentage that really bought beyond their means, but there are also people that fell on hard times. My brother-in-law was one of them. He did not live or buy beyond his means. Worked for United Airlines for 26 years before he passed away. United had striped them of everything, lowered salaries, took away pension, etc. My husband had to bail him out. None of this was his doing. None of this was our doing, but we knew we had to help.

Just curious as to what you would do with all these "new" homeless people?

I have three friends as we speak that are in fear of losing their homes. And not one of them bought or lived beyond their means. All lost jobs and in one case, a catastrophic illness.

You should pray everyday that this does not happen to you. You want families with children on the street? Why not have them stay in your spare bedroom as you go out to play golf or sit playing cards in a Rec Center.

What will you do with these people???? Any solutions? Or just whining.

Life is a matter of risk management all the time. That's why insurance exists and all sorts of housing options are in the marketplace.

Yeah, it does sound cruel to say that when there are two wage-earners in a home, that the family should live on the money earned by one just in case the other loses his/her job, and save the rest for the proverbial rainy day. But that's not what seems to happen - people want that bigger television, or the latest blackberry, or that house that's just a little larger, or in a better neighborhood, or any of a thousand other consumer decisions. When they live at the edge of the envelope, all they give is their kids an example of risky lifestyle exchanging savings for comfort. After all, SOMEBODY ELSE is always responsible when a 95% mortgage is taken and prices drop.

So, we now have a whole generation of risk-takers who gambled and lost, and now everyone else who did skimp and save is supposed to give others an easy way out?

So, the house they couldn't afford is now lost, the car that was leased because the payments got "more wheels for the buck" is at risk, and the house-full of playstations, Coach bags and whatever else the money was spent on instead of rainy-daying some is still being held and not garage-sold.

We now have an entire nation which ignored the "grasshopper and the ant" story, and us dumbbell "ants" get it in the chin for political gamesmanship.

Can I feel sorry for those losing property they couldn't afford? A little. I don't see a long line out there feeling sorry for my spouse and I selling the house up north for $160K less than what we paid for it 4 1/2 years ago. I'm eating that $160K - and it does taste lousy doing so - and am darned happy that I didn't follow what the real estate agents tried to get me to do - that being buying a house they said I could "afford" at our income level. Instead, we bought "less" and with the market tanking I'm out almost all of my equity in the sale. I don't see any of any bailout coming to my rescue for the lost $160K - and I don't see why any should. So, as two of the 92 million taxpayers, my spouse and I will now eat our own losses, and now have to pay until doomsday for the "grasshoppers" as well.

As far as an alternative - let the market solve the problem. If that means that most people have to "downsize" their lives to accommodate their situation, so be it. Life lessons are expensive, and the 92 million taxpayers should not have to pay the entire nation's tuition.

Here's an alternative - Give people the option for taking a government-backed loan equivalent to one year's previous salary (per the last tax return) at 1% interest and give them 10-20 years to repay. Basically, a "student loan" for the College of Hard Knocks. The loan should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. If this alternative was applied, then all the ACORNs and Fannie Maes and all of the other "make government bigger" solutions are not necessary.

Any problem with that?