The government is telling us taxpaying citizens that we need to bail out people who stripped the equity from their homes.
Interesting thought, but here is how I see it: Those people thought that their house was not just a place to live but that it was also the goose laying golden eggs. Well, the goose died, and the eggs were made of fool’s gold (“Obama’s plan to stop foreclosures,” Cover story, News, Feb. 19).
Then there are the people who purchased a home that they could not possibly afford with risky mortgages. These people likely were hoping (or planning) on a goose coming with their house as well. They were going to be rich beyond their dreams.
Now these people are in dire straits, and I’m being told that I should foot the bill for their poor judgment. I do not believe that I should reward or support those who make poor choices.
At the other end of the spectrum are the people who are now selling or losing their homes because they have lost their jobs in part due to the ripple of effect of those who were careless. These people have my sympathy. But there is no knight in shining armor to rescue them.
Kati Litten
Fresno
What about PMI?
One subject that I have not heard in discussions on the housing crisis is why private mortgage insurance (PMI) isn’t paying for these defaulted home loans.
I am sure that most of these foreclosed homes were bought with a down payment of less than 20%, which would require PMI. With PMI, the banks and mortgage companies should have most of their losses covered. Did these banks take the PMI payments, put them in their pockets and not buy the insurance? Wouldn’t that be considered fraud?
With PMI, the homeowner should be able to walk away from a home with no obligation and the lender would be protected. Isn’t that what the PMI was for?
Jim Sfakianos
Pensacola Beach, Fla.