See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Michelle Malkin » Lame Duck Watch: President Bush “exploring economic stimulus package”

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

   Christmas is over, but “Santa Claus politics”–as Thomas Sowell aptly puts it–is forever.

   So true… Bush is wrong on this one.

   Can we utilize General David Petraeus for straightening out this matter as well? I know he’s busy and is doing a wonderful job in Iraq and Afghanistan which precisely why I think he can assist in getting Bush on the right track once more.

   Just a thought.

2. #2
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm, madchef said:

   They gotta bail out the housing industry because it’s the only thing that’s NOT made in China anymore.

3. #3
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm, TXRose said:

   Darn!!! And hear we worked and worked and got our house paid off by ourselves,
   without help from anyone!!!
   Is there any end to the give away programs paid for with our tax money? Soon, the
   majority of the people in this country won’t be paying for anything. We already have
   people declaring bankruptcy at regular intervals and squalling about not being able
   to keep everything they have bought that they don’t want to pay for, and now it’s
   going to be homes also.
   Where does personal responsibility come in?

4. #4
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm, katieanne said:

   I totally agree. Bush is very wrong on this. I don’t understand what the man is thinking. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? He’s acting like a Democrat.

5. #5
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm, TXRose said:

   meant here not hear..

6. #6
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm, gandolphxx said:

   Bush continues to flounder aroun looking for a legacy - the sad thing is that he already has it courtesy of his ammnesty stand, refusal to defend our borders, the LOST issue and the give in to the Gork nonsense - one would think that is enough without creating a gneration of irresponsible home owners on the backs of those of us that pay our bills and taxes.

7. #7
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

   He wants to be responsible for bringing both sides together on issues…as if he doesn’t have more pressing matters to tend to. Bush, I love ya man but enough already.

8. #8
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm, MrScribbler said:

   Amazing. Bush dropped the ball on the “War on Terror” by being indecisive and playing footsie with his terrorist-enabling oil buddies, wants to fling the border gates — that’s a joke — wide open, laid the blast on Ramos and Compean and now wants to side with the lefty wackos on freebies for the foolish.

   If his opponents in ‘00 and ‘04 hadn’t been such pathetic losers, he would never have made it to the Oval Office.

   And yet, some people still say “this time he’s really messing up.

   No more excuses for Bush. Republicans’ goal should be to distance themselves as much as possible from this scoundrel, and go back to what conservative values are supposed to be.

   He has lied to his own people too many times.

9. #9
   On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm, mike volpe said:

   Here is the way I see this. There are three sorts of folks in the world: capitalists, socialists, and fair weather capitalists.

   We can spot the first two, however it is the third that we should worry about.

   Those folks love capitalism when things are going great. everyone was a capitalist in the nineties when technology was revoluionizing the world. No one was proposing government regulation to stop that were they. Of course, capitalism doesn’t mean that things will be great all the time, and in fact, we have to expect crises in a capitalistic system because just as folks use capitalism for good they can use it foolishly. If we swoop in with government bailout, assistane, and regulations every time we have an economic crisis, we aren’t living in capitalism anymore but socialism, and thus those fair weather capitalists are the most dangerous.

   Here is how I wrote about it.

10. #10
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm, Boomer said:

    On January 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm, madchef said:
    They gotta bail out the housing industry because it’s the only thing that’s NOT made in China anymore.

    From what I’ve seen in my area most of the workers in the manufacturing end of this industry are of questionable immigration status with real problems in speaking English. I do feel like a chump for trying to live within my means while those that acted irresponsibly will have a nice Government funded safety net to bailout the lender that encouraged this behavior with easy loans for those that should have never qualified for them in the first place.

11. #11
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm, Bob69 said:

    I supported Bush until recently. He doesn’t seem to understand that responsible Americans don’t want to and are tired of bailing out the ignorant and unwillling that screw up their finances. I had to declare personal Bankruptcy due to business failure and I bore the burden of reclaiming my credit rating. NOBODY BAILED ME OUT MR BUSH!!!!!

12. #12
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm, josetheguerilla said:

    both Hillary and President Bush continue their housing bailout crusades on parallel tracks

    Suck it up, or it will come back to bite us in the A$$ later.

    The guerilla

13. #13
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm, crashemt said:

    I just want to vomit….

    My wife and I dream for a house. The artficial prices here in DC have kept the market out of reach, because we knew we couldn’t afford an “interest only” ARM. Finally, the bubble has burst, and we were sure that the foreclosures and supply would bring prices back to reality. Lo and behold, my government wants to protect the irresponsible at the cost of those of us who saved, and waited.

    How is it that these “victims” could do math when it came to calculating the profits they would make in selling their houses before the ARM rates kicked up, but some how became math dyslexic when they signed the documents saying how much they would have to pay?

    I guess we need to change the last line of the National Anthem to “O’er the land where no one is responsible, but everyone else has to pay for it”

14. #14
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm, mike volpe said:

    There is one more thing I will point out. In the story that Michelle wrote, there is a quote that said Bush was responding to public sentiment.

    That is fine he is a politician and relies on the voters. The Fed is selected not elected exactly so that the Fed DOES NOT respond to public sentiment, and yet that is exactly what the Fed did when they rolled out their own plan.

    Frankly, I have analyzed each of the plans, Hillary’s, Obama’s, H.R. 3915, Bush’s plan, and the plan from the Fed, and the fed may have the worst plan and certainly no better than anyone else.

    It is one thing for politicians to propose ridiculous legislation on mortgages. They don’t know any better.

    One would think the Fed would know better and you would all be wrong.

    Here is my analysis of the Fed’s plan.

15. #15
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    The last time I checked Ron Paul wasn’t pandering like this.

16. #16
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm, davidleerothmann said:

    Can we utilize General David Petraeus for straightening out this matter as well?

    Can we just elect Gen. Petraeus as a write in candidate? Here is a man too smart, sane, and virtuous to seek the office of President, and that is exactly why he should BE President!

17. #17
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm, nbarry said:

    This problem should never have been allowed to develop in the first place. God knows how much money we’ve thrown away on the care and feeding of economic advisors, the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department, and not one of them had a clue that this was coming? The problem with these official proposals is that they amount to unfair, band-aid remedies for deeper dysfunctions. I propose a statutory cap on all interest rates across the board, especially credit cards, applicable to all borrowers, including those who conscientiously make all their timely payments, and ban all the snake-oil practices in the lending industry: no adjustible rates, no teaser rates, no arbitrariness of any kind. The objective is to give borrowers a fighting chance at paying off their principal and forcing lenders to be more responsible in extending credit. And an interest cap shouldn’t cost the taxpayers one dollar. Oh yes, the real estate market should never under any circumstances be left in the hands of hedge fund hotshots and high rollers.

18. #18
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm, bloghooligan said:

    ok, this isn’t hillarycare for homeowners. hillarycare actually calls for the gov’t to spend money. this does not.

    there’s a reason Citi is willing to take more losses to back Bush’s plan - it’s not about the homeowners, it’s about the market.

    the market right now is in flux specifically because of housing woes. this is a means to ease investors moreso than homeowners. the fact that banks will most likely force borrowers to be perfect citizens (Bush has also stated that a rate freeze would only be for borrowers in good standing) in order to benefit from the freeze in interest rates should be reassuring to us. but massive sell offs are hurting the entire market - not just the housing market - because of these subprime loans.

    but somehow, the ripple effect’s got to stop.

19. #19
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm, gandolphxx said:

    It is way past time for Republicans and conservatives to realize that GWBush is not a very good president - he is a RINO in the worst way - each thing he does right he immediately screws something else up - enough!

20. #20
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm, Papa Louie said:

    The housing crisis affects more than irresponsible lenders and home buyers. I hope none of you lose your job and have to relocate during this downturn. You’ll find it very difficult to find a buyer at any price in most markets. Many responsible homeowners will be hurt by the collateral damage from the housing crisis.

    I’m not calling for a taxpayer funded bailout, but there are other ways to help ease the crisis. I appreciate what President Bush has done to get major lenders together and voluntarily work out ways to help keep families in their homes and avoid foreclosure. Every home that is foreclosed on goes back on the market and puts downward pressure on the value of your home and my home. Lenders are beginning to realize that deferring higher interest rates on stressed homeowners may be better for their stockholders than foreclosing and selling homes at a loss.

    Just as there is a big difference between privately run health insurance and government run Hillarycare, there is also a big difference between voluntary measures and a government bailout. We need to distinguish between the two and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

21. #21
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm, amigoneus said:

    “A second initiative could help ease a credit crunch for many middle- and upper-middle-income borrowers, in part by allowing government-sponsored mortgage companies such as Fannie Mae to securitize more large loans. Currently, those companies can’t take on loans with values of more than $417,000. ”

    Holy cow. I’m securily in the middle class and wouldn’t dream of trying to buy a home for that much. Maybe, just maybe (heavy sarcasm here) that’s the real problem. People buying more house than they can afford. On second thought, is that really sarcasm or just being observant and smart?

22. #22
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm, graysonret said:

    From what I’ve seen, 95% of homeowners pay their mortgages. Not much of a “crisis”, I see. But, many people these days want a parent state, a nanny state, to take care of all their problems and woes. The Soviet Union was good for that. Of course, we see Cuba “succeeding”. Anyone hear anything coming out of Sweden…besides the high suicide rate? The Constitution has been downgraded to nothing more than an “oh,ah” piece of parchment at the Archives. Other than that, it’s ignored or misinterpeted for political gain.

23. #23
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm, Bogtrotter said:

    I bought a house about three years ago. I was certainly prime fodder for low (initially) interest predatory lenders. But I went with a VA loan thorough a large, well known bank (Rymes with “Hells. LOL!). Bought an existing house 20 years old and began making the needed repairs myself. Paid a little higher rate, sure, but 10 years from now I will still be in it.

24. #24
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm, mike volpe said:

    nbarry,

    you would be dangerous if you had any power. How exactly would this cap work and how would you set it? Do you know what happens whenever there is a cap on anything? It creates a situation where supply doesn’t meet demand.

    We have a cap here in Illinois on mortgage interest rates, and here is what happens when it is applied

    When the government steps in and determines caps on a private transaction, we are one step closer to socialism.

    The real problem is too many folks like you with no understanding of what happens or is happening proposing things they shouldn’t propose. Yours is harmless since it is thrown out on a message board where it can be analyzed. Others have a great deal of harm.

25. #25
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm, Christian Soldier said:

    Calls to the RNC - The various state RCs and to our elected officials worked against amnesty. Let’s do it now.

    I know that Kyle of AZ was the only one who voted against bail-out - however - it’s never too late to express our chagrin that the $$$$ of responsible citizens (that would be me and thee) are being used to bail out irresponsible people and big corporate banks.

26. #26
    On January 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm, beenthere said:

    I wonder how far Bush will be able to go with this housing bailout, or whatever people wish to call it. For one thing, it would be far better for the Democrats to allow this situation to steadily deteriorate while Bush is still in office. Seriously, why would the dems want to work with the Republicans on this given the risks that the plans, whatever they are, backfire badly on them both? I think the Republicans are all on their own on this one. Think government intervention will makes matters worse in any event? All too likely.

    Bush may be able to do something on his own, to be sure, but I seriously doubt congress will be willing to help. What a fiasco and to an extent, though there is plenty of blame to go around, the Republicans deserve it.

27. #27
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am, mike volpe said:

    What I am about to say comes from a mortgage professional however it is only this one professional. there is absolutely no consensus in my business on this point.

    That said, all of these so called bailouts are in my opinion totally worthless. I believe that most of these folks not only bought over their heads but refinanced one or more times tapping equity to perpetuated the problem. There is no fix for them because there is no loan unless the government mandates 150% Loan to Value loans. Here is how I wrote about it.