Skip to main content

View Diary: Who should we save and why? Are we Democrats or Republicans? (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  To address your second issue first (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shesk, arainsb123

    If someone bought a home and was laid off they should receive the same level of unemployment insurance as the person who didn't buy a home and was laid off.  I note that the person who didn't buy a home is likely poorer.  Why should the richer person receive more unemploment benefits than the poorer person?

    To address the first question if predatory lenders committed fraud, they should go to jail.  If the fraud cost the borrowers money the borrowers should be entitled to restitution from the lenders, under the usual applicable standards for proving and recovering such damages.  But we as a society don't generally repay crime victims from government funds.

    •  And if the lenders don't have the restitution (4+ / 0-)

      to give? The problem here is that by not bailing out homeowners, you put more people on the streets which leads to more crime, more illness, more suicides, etc. Keeping people in their homes is an aid to society as a whole.

    •  Umemployment (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eugene, tabbycat in tenn, Arken, Lava20

      is based on wages, the person who loses their home probably made more than the person who didn't have one.  So your point makes no sense, the person who owned a home would get more based on what they made and what they paid into the system.

      •  They don't pay anything into the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Arken, Ellinorianne

        system.  Business does.  But what you get out does depend on what you put in.  All of which makes no difference.  Seems like a strawman to me.

        There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Ed Howdershelt

        by Lava20 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:40:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'll try this again (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shesk

        Person H lives in California making 50,000 a year. He owns a home worth 500,000 when she bought it with $25,000 down. He gets fired.  He is entitled to $500/ week in unemployment insurance.  To keep the home she needs to receive 3500 a month.  You are proposing that we (the government) pay her the difference.

        Person R also lives in California making 40,000 a year. She rents. She gets fired.  She is entitled to 400 a week.  To keep her apartment, she needs to receive 1200 per month.  

        Why is it that you wish to help person H stay in his home and not person R?

        Why is it that you think person H deserves 3000 more than their unemployment insurance and person R (who has earned less and is likely poorer) doesn't?

        Why should we help person H keep ownership of a potentially valuable asset and not help person R acquire ownerhsip of a similar asset?

        •  Because we bailed out the banks when (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ellinorianne

          we should have bailed out the homeowners which in turn, would have helped the banks.

          You are only using the worst case examples. There are plenty of people who fell for it when they were offered homes that you or I know we couldn't afford. We can't just let them all lose their homes. At the time they got the loans, they could pay for it. They couldn't look far enough ahead, like some of us would have, to see what was going to happen to them.

        •  Um no (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not suggesting that at all, you didn't get my point.  Regardless, the person who makes more will take more in unemployment, that was my only point.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site