G. Alston:
Perhaps you should re-read your own words:
“The problem isn’t mortgage rates except for those who got tricked into rapacious ARMs.”
My comment on ARMs is directed at your claim that ARMs were foisted on poor little borrowers.
You didn’t say the bailout would? Let’s feed some more words back to you.
“The real problem is that housing values are less than what far too many people owe on current mortgages. The bailout deal was a way to try to keep these people from walking.”
Sounds like at least a weak endorsement to me. Perhaps you are unable to comprehend the meaning of your own words. If you did not want to give the impression that you were endorsing the bailout then perhaps you should have said that the “intent of the bailout…” and you thought that it was a bad deal. By contrasting the bailout to the 4% as written you gave impression of endorsing one over the other..
The purpose of the 4% deal is not to help people who can’t pay their mortgages and/or are underwater. It is designed to increase disposable income. If you read my comment closely you would see that I opposed having the Fed set artificially low interest rates.
Seems like you are projecting your own lifestyle on to others.
