So, if it’s all or none, what’s your vote?

Julie, GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) is not a tiny little sideline of GM. In some recent years, it has been the division which kept GM afloat. True, they make many new auto loans, aiding GM’s auto sales, but they also lend to dealers to finance inventory, and even have a mortgage operation.

As for bailing out, or otherwise covering bets (mortgages) gone bad, why single out “homeowners” (meaning, I presume “owner occupants”) and not others? Aren’t the tenants of investors just as likely to be out on the street in a foreclosure? And aren’t residents of resort/retirement communities with a high percentage of second-home owners entitled to the price protections that a bailout will provide?

All or (better) none, I say.

I agree with you… but what the heck can lenders do? Don’t you think they’re seat-belted in on this sinking ship?

Sorry if I was a bit upset, I felt tricked into reading the article . And actually I’m not a McCain-lover. I just didn’t see the McCain making a statement that lenders should offer 0% mortgages. My impression is McCain believes lenders can work this out in some unique fashion, like GM did, to help families. Maybe that’s doing the exact same thing as GM, but McCain left that up to lenders with the statement, “we need a similar response by the mortgage lenders.”

On this particular issue I completely agree with McCain. Government should not help out those who gambled and lost, instead call on the lenders to do what’s right for America.

So, believe it or not, I’m not a McCain-hater… might just be the opposite, not sure yet.

Just like you, I was pulled into the headline from the Chicago Tribune: “Did McCain call for zero-percent mortgage rates?”

I still believe that the statements McCain made allude to the fact that lenders should help the situation by offering 0% mortgages… do you really disagree?

Thanks for reading… and “debating”… I love it when people don’t agree with me!