Posted on 07/10/2008 8:54:53 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Only 21% Support Federal Help for Those Facing Foreclosure Thursday, July 10, 2008
As the Senate inches toward passage of a $300 billion bill to help homeowners facing foreclosure, a new Rasmussen Reports national survey shows that only 21% of voters think the federal government should provide such assistance.
Slightly more than half (51%) say the government should not help these troubled homeowners and 27% are undecided.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
21% sounds about right.
So why is it that the press keeps telling us that the incumbent Rats are going to win by a landslide in the Senate seats.
Of course, it wouldn’t be FAIR if all of us who saved our money and worked hard and lived reaonsably didn’t help out those who were living the high life with massive debt. Thank god the Democrats will fix this! /sarc
People over extend and buy more than they can afford.
Government now wants to pander and help those who over extended them selves and give away tax money.
Am I missing something here? BTW, whose tax money will the government give away? Those who didn't over extend themselves? Those who were prudent and are paying taxes? Yea, there are a lot of heartless @ssholes like me out there. Makes me feel real good too!
How many of that 21% are facing foreclosure themselves?
That being the case, why is Congress trying to even pass legislation that the majority of the American public oppose?
(I know ... I know ... )
Now the really HARD work is convincing liberals in Congress NOT to do so!
Fixed.
You are not kidding. This is terrible on so many levels, not least of which is how it will destroy the integrity of contracts in general.
Obviously most Americans understand those who got in this mess did so of their own volition. Not only did they hurt themselves, they have done harm to their communities and their country. There is only one way for us to make sure this doesn't happen again and that is to hold people responsible for their behavior.
That said, I do think that any mortgage companies, appraisers and real estate professionals who are proven to have committed fraud should be subject to existing laws.
So let me get this straight...
21% in favor of Democrat plans to bail out poor financial decisions
80%+ who want to drill for oil... against Democrat opposition
Marriage Amendments pass overwhelmingly wherever they are on the ballot... and Democrats seek to subvert them
... and these are just a few that spring readily to mind...
Why, exactly, are people so convinced they’re this great panacea?
Just talked to a friend of mine in California. She is in foreclosure now. Credit cards are maxed out.
Part of her problem is that she kept refinancing her house to take trips to Europe. I don’t know what she is going to do. She also has two labs to take care of.
No food other than veggies from a coop she belongs to. Also she was so paranoid about Y2K that she bought tons of MRES that she busted into and is now eating.
The Father of the U.S. Constitution agrees with the 51%.
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
“How many of that 21% are facing foreclosure themselves?”
Or are even taxpayers?
Welfare moms for example, would always be in favor of surrogate daddy/husband, big government, bailing out the criminally irresponsible.
They didn't care who took out a mortgage since all they wanted to do was sell it as an investment product.
That’s right...21% of the people and 100% of the banks say the government should bail out the bad loans. Makes you think a little huh?
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
— President Franklin Pierce’s 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
That’s right...21% of the people and 100% of the banks say the government should bail out the bad loans. Makes you think a little huh?
Excellent! The Founding Fathers would cry of shame if they saw the Liberal Welfare Plantation.
Look, just because she has made some bad decisions, she is my friend and will always be.
That being said, I do not want to imply that I want the govt to bail her out.
I am very opposed to that. Nobody bailed my butt out when I was in trouble. I don’t and did not expect that.
I was trying to make the point that most of these people in trouble got themselves in that position.
I don’t think it is my responsiblity as a tax payer to bail them out.
Twenty-one percent...the Katrinaites, the Obamaites, and the Welfarians across the land have spoken.
Just another form of welfare for stupid people. It’s far beyond time to end the taxpayer-funded gravy train.
Which is just under 2% of home owners. Some crisis.
If the government bails her out, the chances are greater that she’ll take more unaffordable trips to Europe.
“21% sounds about right.”
I’d rather see it at 1%, 21% says that there are way too many leaches in this society.
The fact that democRATs win elections in light of public opinion tells me that there's rampant voter fraud. There simply can't be that many stupid people.
“Just talked to a friend of mine in California. She is in foreclosure now. Credit cards are maxed out.”
Why would you consider such a person a friend?
The thing is she is a very educated person. She was offered a good job in Tuscon with a rent free place to live. She turned it down, because she does not like the heat. Doesn’t want to live anywhere but Humboldt County. The problem is that THERE ARE NO JOBS THERE!! One of the reasons why I moved to Arizona last year.
She was also, a few years ago offered a job in the State of California Crime Lab in Sacramento. Turned that down too. I told her the other night that she is in no position to be picky right now.
$300 billion for helping those facing foreclosure! No where can this be justified in the Constitution! How do they get away with expanding the federal government’s power this much? This kind of spending is illegal, stupid, and unaffordable. We literally CANNOT pay for spending like this.
I’d rather see it at 1%, 21% says that there are way too many leaches in this society.
Yeah, sometimes I wonder.
Succinctly wise.
Government doesn’t care if we support it or not. They just don’t want to miss an opportunity to take money from those who have some and give it to those who have less.
Nothing more than income transfer - the left’s goal in life.
Retrievers, or meth?
Good point, but let's wait and see how many Republicans will vote against bailouts.
Looks like John McCain with his support of these losers is on the wrong side (liberal) of an issue again.
Looks like John McCain with his support of these losers is on the wrong side (liberal) of an issue again.
Amen.
Honestly, I would rather help people thru my church or a charity. I am not opposed to helping folks out, but I don’t want the govt to decide to do it for me.
susie
For years my husband has lamented that so many people used their homes as ATM machines. I'm not a genius and I saw this coming.
susie
Sorry about your friend — but while she’s eating those old MREs, she needs to think carefully about what she plans to do for her future — something that does not include taking government handouts.
She took multiple trips to Europe? Nice, but how about living within her means? I, and so many others, am sick to death of the whining about the big bad mortgage companies who caused people to go into foreclosure because the companies did not explain the game. Yes, lenders were greedy and most of them should not be bailed out either, but how about borrowers taking some personal responsibility?
No one knows what was really said to the borrowers during the loan process. And no amount of talking on lenders’ parts would’ve ensured understanding by the borrowers, if they even paid attention. If there is one time to pay attention to fine print and ask questions, it’s when making a major purchase such as a house!
I met a family needing to re-home their two year old pure-bred Golden Retriever because they “lost their house” and were moving to an apartment. The dog was UNlicensed, and was not up to date on shots, yet it was out and about in the neighborhood daily. This, in Los Angeles County. It’s totally illegal not to have a dog licensed and evidence of current rabies shot. The owner could not even get the dog groomed as she had no paperwork re the shot.
They also had a couple of fancy cars in the driveway of the home they were being booted from within days — another example of great money management. No doubt the “repo man” would be coming for those cars soon, too.
Enough already — count me in with those who are fed up with bailing out the fools who either don’t get it due to stupidity or think the rest of us should support their lifestyles without blinking an eye.
I absolutely agree with you.
When my ex and I owned our home, we never once refinanced it for a car, vacations etc..he and I were definately on the same page there. The only way I would do that is to upgrade the house.
retrievers of course.
We refinanced a couple of times, but only to get much better rates (we bought our first house at something like 18 or 21%!) One time we did roll in some remodeling (we bought an older house and redid the kitchen and added a room on the back). But my husband would have had apoplexic if I had even suggested we pay for 30 years on a vacation or new car!
susie
I’m sorry, but you cannot use Congress and Wisdom in the same sentence—even in jest! ;)
susie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.