The president is about to sign a sweeping bill to address the nation's forclosure issues.?

Question

Is this not "conservatism" at its best? I mean, I realize he didn't want to sign it, and it was a Democrat wish list, but he is going to sign it. How does this serve us? Is this just a bandaid for the problem, or a solution?

Answer 1

I'm afraid it's probably necessary, but I don't like it.  Partly because it won't help as many people as it should, due to the restrictions on it.  It will only help first time home buyers who make a certain amount of money, and only about 400,000 of them.

Mostly I don't like it because it's basically rewarding people for making bad decisions.  Even if the loan people were aggressively hawking the ARMS, the people who bought them knew how much money they made and shouldn't have gotten the loan.  I notice no one is talking about lowering the payments of my 30 year fixed.

Answer 2

While traditional conservatism states that the market will correct itself and that a business should be allowed to rise or fall on it's own merits, America currently has a neo-conservative, not a conservative government. This means that it will do all that it can to protect big business. Even if it means preventing the market from weeding out bad players naturally.

Answer 3

It sinks the US further into debt and continues to foster Americans' immature, irresponsible attitudes and actions...so no, it will not help...

Bush is as liberal as they come, he is no conservative...Congress is insane however...

Answer 4

Reward people for greed - and the rest of us pay for it.  It doesn't serve us, and it isn't a solution to anything.

Answer 5

Like a fix for a drug addict, it will feel good for a little while.  Our economy needs rehab, not more fixes that won't last.

Where will they draw the line?  I'm afraid they will ultimately nationalize the banking and housing industry.  It sure looks like its where they're headed.  If they do, there will be no end to what government takes over.  And we all know how competent government is, right?!  Greenspan once stated he thought he could make the fiat dollar act just like gold.  I heard a sitting congresswoman say they should nationalize the oil companies.  The arrogance of it all is mind boggling.  As usual, government intervention is not the solution, but the problem.  In the end, I think the market will sort it all out, as it should.  To think a handful of politicians are economic wizards is an exercise in futility.

Answer 6

It is using the government to solve a market-created issue.  This is not Conservative, and it will encourage further market-incompetence knowing Big Daddy Government will fix everything.

Then again, Duh-Buhya increased spending to levels that would make the worst Liberal flinch; he never was a true Conservative in the first place.

While the citizens need help, the investors and banks need to hang the bad-loan marketers and brokers up by their testicles for creating the problem.

Answer 7

Its a band-aid. But you have to stop the bleeding or the patient will die before you can deal with the real problem.

The cons are whining about this?  Tough. They should have thought about that BEFORE they stripped the SeC and other agencies of the authority to oversee these financial markets.

What happened is exactly what we nasty liberals told you would happen: If you do not have acop on the beat, crooks will have a field day.

You didn't want a cop on the beat. The crooks had a field day. Now we have to spend tens of billions of dollars to clean up the mess you created.

So pipe down.