Quantcast

Comments about ‘Romney says foreclosures should "hit the bottom"’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 18 2011 9:00 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Malachi
Riverton, UT

Whether readers want to admit it or not, Romney is right. Home values will continue to fall until the foreclosures have run their course. By artificially propping them up we are actually prolonging the pain and at the same time putting our nation deeper into debt and thereby pushing our national government that much closer to a financial meltdown.

justaguy
Out There in, WI

Harsh, but best. I wonder how the economy would be faring at this point had there not been any bailouts. If banks and the other bailout recipients had not been proped up there would have been job lost and all that but I think the economy would have recoveryed faster. The pain would have beeb significant but over quickly. I doubt we'd be looking at the possibility of a second recession. Who knows, if Clinton hadn't been so anxious to create ways for more people to buy houses we might not have had all those sub-prime loans out there to go bad or get bundled and sold off as investment instruments. Maybe we could have skipped this whole mess.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Maybe Mr. Mitt will allow some of the homeless to set up their tents on his numerous estates, until "it hits bottom"(kind, generous, fabulous individual that he is).

FDRfan
safety dictates, ID

Mitt Romney is absolutely correct in this. Where I may differ with him is if he thinks the solution to housing, after the needed clearing of the foreclosure pipeline, is strictly in the private sector. The FHA was set up because the private market did not work. There were no long term amortized loans with affordable down payments until the Government stepped in. It was the privatization of Fannie Mae that led to its following the Wall Street crowd into the risky sub prime mortgage backed securities. Fannie Mae should return to its public purpose of promoting home ownership where the conventional loans were not feasible. The problem with Republicans in general is that they cannot see a money flow without sucking out part of it. The private market does not make housing nor health care more affordable to the average person.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

I believe that Reid can only be termed a socialist, which is unfortunate for someone who by his own admission is a christian. I think being a christian and a socialist are contradictory. Although Jesus can not be described as either a capitalist or socialist, I'm certain that he would be opposed to any government that takes away someone's unalienable rights-since those rights were given by Him-all of which socialists countries do! Reid is on the wrong side of history. Government is not the answer to our most pressing problems.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments