>These guys seem to be discussing whether or not the law already requires >it. My take is that the law was written to save the market, not the >people. But the president can change it. Should change it.
That's exactly what it was meant to do. Within certain bounds, it's a good thing to do. However, by going a step further down to the borrowers, they resolve the problems of all. However, given the short sightedness of Hank Paulson and possibly the young crony of his from Goldman Sachs, restoring the market is the primary goal. That's the problem when either party deals with 'elites' working for their own interests, the 'little guy' gets left behind. We don't have royalty in this country, but we have people that act like they are. On one hand, I don't think the govt should eat the difference in current home value from the purchase price, but then it was govt actions that brought it about. If we are going to spend the money... the individuals are probably more deserving than the banks. Then we can go out and flog Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, BHO, etc. for covering for Fannie & Freddie. I would also think the banks should have some recourse against ACORN that intimidated some of them to give bad loans. -- Larry Miller --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
