Shouldn't the U.S. use the bailout to buy the deliquent mortgages directly, instead of securities?

Question

"A more effective strategy would be for the government to target the source of the toxicity by buying actual loans, not the securities that back them. It could do so by taking ownership of entire mortgage pools, starting first with the lowest quality (and most toxic) ones. "

http://www.correntewire.com/how_the_incr…


These properties could be managed by HUD, or Fannie or Freddie, and sold at lower interest rates, with longer terms if necessary - 50 year mortgages, for instance.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

no the bail out money should be sent to us. Each one of us over 18 should receive approx $300,000 a piece then with taxes we might have $200,000 left, but that is 200,000 that would go back into the economy, house could be paid off, cars be bought etc & the economy would boom. The government would also get $100,000 back in tax revenue from each person thus expanding the tax base. It is a win win deal. But instead they will drop the money into a bottomless pit & we will each pay $300,000 a piece for the bail out with nothing in return.

Answer 2

There should not be a bail-out at all. I am tired of paying other people's bills.

Answer 3

yeah, except its the securties that matter fro the stock market


but if ya ask me, i think this bailout idea is pathetic!

Answer 4

What they are really trying to do is keep confidence in the stock market, this is one of the problems of having a "stock market economy" which is what ours is. You see, if there is a crash it takes awhile for people to have faith in the system again. That means less money for them to have control over.

Nobody should be bailed out, this should be a lesson learned by all. From companies to buyers...