5 Responses to “Welcome to Post-Moral Hazard America”

1. #1 |  Dave Krueger |  November 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm

   Wait a sec. How can we, as patriotic Americans, argue with a plan that brings to ordinary citizens the privileges so long enjoyed only by the government aristocracy? Of course, I’m talking about the right to spend beyond your income level. Surely someone who simply follows in the footsteps of government can’t be accused of being irresponsible. Nor can they be held accountable for consequences out of their control. They were victimized and cruelly used by big corporations no less than well-meaning government is abused by those same powers. And for those who proudly pay their bills on time, I say fuck ‘em. If only the poor victims of this mortgage crisis were so lucky that they could afford to live within their means. If you want the benefits of victimization, you need to be a victim. That means you need to reconsider your elitest attitude that paying your bills makes you better than those who don’t.

   Hmmm… I am so full of shit that one of these days I’m just gonna float away.

2. #2 |  Boyd Durkin |  November 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm

   I see nothing that could go wrong with this plan.
   –Homer Simpson

   The good news is that economists for centuries will use this time to show how horribly, corrupt ass-clowns will create really bad economic policies that ruin the lives of millions of people. An example THIS bad will have to be good for something.

3. #3 |  z |  November 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm

   Barack Obama says he “recognizes that the real victims in the subprime mortgage crisis are not the lenders, but the millions of borrowers who followed the rules and whose only crime was taking out mortgages that lenders told them they could afford.”

   I tell you what, if I loaned someone $500,000 and only got back $200,000, I’d feel pretty victimized, especially if they lied about their ability to pay me back when they applied.

4. #4 |  qwints |  November 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm

   I, for one, don’t believe in the notion of a moral obligation to pay off a contracted-for debt (social agreements are an entirely different beast.) If breaching a contract is efficient for you given the consequences, then you ought to breach the contract. If I owe $500,000 on a house worth $100,000, then I should stop paying the mortgage and let the bank have the house. That’s how collateral works and the bank was a sophisticated party that should realize that this might happen when they drew up the contract.

5. #5 |  Scott |  November 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm

   This is all eyewash. The “Hope for Homeowners” program, and related tax credit programs, are the latest, most hilarious joke being shared among the country’s mortgage brokers. Why? Because there isn’t a single lender in the country who will underwrite a borrower who’s 90 days late in their mortgage payments. Every loan guaranteed by Freddie/Fannie/FHA/USDA *must* first originate from a legitimate lender. And lenders, for some reason, have become a bit skittish as of late.

---