Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


The home mortgage buy-up has already been approved; Update: McCain camp confirms no additional fund request

posted at 11:05 am on October 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

Last night, conservatives groaned in unison when John McCain launched his “new” initiative to renegotiate the principal on home mortgages with owners approaching bankruptcy.  Some called this a “second bailout”, and others predicted a massive hit on home values nationwide.  In fact, this is nothing terribly new nor innovative, and it has as much chance of preserving home values as it does of eroding them.

First, lenders already have begun modifiying mortgages, including principal, and for very good reason.  Foreclosures create massive losses for lenders, and they’re better off keeping owners in their homes and making payments — even if they take a 10-20% loss on the principal, on paper.  The result will be lower profit than originally expected, but it’s still profit, and right now that looks a lot better than a potential 50-75% loss through foreclosure.

Now that Treasury will buy hundreds of billions in mortgage-backed securities, they in effect have become the lender.  They will own the papers on these homes, and must act in the long-term best interest in managing them.  That will mean negotiating with homeowners just as private lenders have already done, trying to keep people in their homes and preventing as many defaults as possible.  Note that this comes as a result of the legislation Congress already passed, and not any new initiative.  What McCain proposes is a specific strategy of managing the paper to prevent as many homes from foreclosure as possible.  In the end, that strategy could result in considerable long-term profit rather than a taxpayer bath.

Renegotiating the principal on these loans will not directly impact home values, for two reasons.  The action will keep these homes off the market, while home values depend on the sale prices of homes in the immediate vicinity.  Second, home values are already dropping, thanks to the deflation of the housing bubble, excess inventory through overbuilding of new homes, and the anticipated addition of tens of thousands of foreclosures.  Lenders are also not writing too many mortgages these days, making it impossible to buy or sell.  If these foreclosures hit the market, it will not only drastically lower the prices in neighborhoods across America, it will eat into the ability of lenders to grant mortgages in the future — and they won’t have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backstopping them any longer.

This proposal doesn’t go any farther than Congress has already gone in injecting the government into private lending markets in order to undo their disastrous interventions over the past decade.  It does offer a management strategy for the portfolios that Treasury will buy with that now-existing authority.  The plan follows a fairly straightforward private-sector strategy in an attempt to keep as many people in their homes as possible. Without some sort of renegotiation on these loans, we’ll start seeing massive foreclosures and the rapid deflation of home values everywhere — which is what McCain said he wanted to prevent.

Update: Michelle strongly disagrees.

Update II: I’ve consulted an economist on this point, and he points out that the trouble with MBSs is that they consist of pieces of several loans.  That’s what will make renegotiating terms through the private sector almost impossible — it will require hundreds of people to agree on each one.  He thinks that McCain’s proposal will create a shortcut that will allow for quick renegotiation, which could keep many of these mortgages from going into default.

The McCain campaign confirmed with me that the $300 billion McCain referenced was part of the existing bailout, not an additional outlay.  He wants it redirected into this effort.  I’ve asked for a link, and I’ll add it when I get it.

Update III: Marc Ambinder has this report from a Team McCain conference call this morning:

On a conference call with reporters, McCain policy chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin spelled out how McCain would pay for his plan for the government to buy troubled mortgages and replace when with more favorable fixed-rate mortgages at minimal direct cost to the homeowners. The government could use some of the $700 billion authorized for the bailout and tap other accounts, although the campaign estimates that, owing to negative equity — the government can’t magically turn bad mortgages into good ones without taking a hit — would be $300 billion.  The McCain team hopes that by buying mortgages directly, the government wouldn’t have to buy as many distressed assets from big banks, thus reducing the net cost. McCain claims this idea as his own, although the bailout/rescue bill already gives the government the authority to deal directly with homeowners, and Obama has suggested that the government do the same — although McCain’s certainly being more aggressive here.

As I said, the authority to do this was in the plan all along.  It’s not an additional $300 billion — it’s using $300 billion of the $700 billion already authorized to hit more directly on mortgages rather than rescuing investors from their derivatives.  It transfers at least some of the pain back to the people who speculated on mortgages, but in effect gives the derivatives more value through the support of the mortgages on which they’re based.

Update IV: The Hope for Homeowners program, within the plan passed by Congress a week ago, already has this mechanism within it:

HOPE for Homeowners (H4H) is a program designed to assist borrowers at risk of default or foreclosure in refinancing to an affordable 30-year fixed rate FHA loan. The program is effective October 1, 2008 and will conclude on September 30, 2011. …

The loan amount may not exceed a nationwide maximum of $550,440.

The new mortgage will be no more than 90% of the new appraised value including any financed UFMIP with the lender essentially writing down the current mortgage to that amount.

Upfront MIP is 3% and the monthly MIP is 1.5%

The holders of existing mortgage liens must waive all prepayment penalties and late payment fees.

The existing first mortgage must accept the proceeds of the H4H loan as full settlement of all outstanding indebtedness.

Existing subordinate lenders must release their outstanding mortgage liens.

Update V: King Banaian looks at the McCain proposal:

There’s a glut of homes on the market. A glut is reduced either by decreasing supply or increasing demand. Lee Ohanian tries to sell an increased in skilled immigrants as a way to increase demand. The McCain Resurgence Plan, at its base, tries to reduce supply by not forcing the sale of homes through foreclosures. It might be, might be, cheaper to throw a few dollars into homes directly than to support the banks through the purchase of MBSs. …

The relief of negative equity means that the banks would receive from the government the difference between the principal on the original mortgage and the mortgage “at terms manageable for the homeowner.” I still need some flesh on that. I would want to know if the 31% payment-to-income ratio is the definition of manageable. I’d want to know if the government can be certain the initial purchase price on the home was not set in order to qualify someone for a shady mortgage. Those details aren’t there, and don’t look in Marty Feldstein’s pitch from last Friday (which is not exactly the same proposal anyway, but a close cousin.)

Be sure to read all of King’s post.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Yep.

Everyone needs to quit their job.
Stop paying their bills.
Apply for welfare.
Apply for food stamps.
Stop paying their mortgage.
Stop paying their taxes.
Apply for unemployment.

Then, apparently, we become the ones who matter in this country.

lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM

I remember better times when people actually paid for their mistakes.
Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Me too, but right now I’m paying for the mistakes of others since I live in an ACORN-babyfied neighborhood. I have no more part in this than, say, the Czechoslovakians had when the Soviets invaded.

And we’re all paying because we haven’t been able to drill or refine our own oil, or build nuclear power plants. Oh, and let’s not forget how we’re paying for the ethanol scam with higher food prices.

This is why it is so dangerous to allow Democrats to hold power.

Buy Danish on October 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 1:23 PM

If the govt is going to meddle, why not send me the $50 grand so I can sell my house and buy another one. Consider it a rebate and make it contingent on actually buying another house. Auto makers do it all the time and I have been waiting for 2 years to sell mine.

Then give the guy who buys my house enough $ so he can sell his. Reward good behaviour – not bad. Meanwhile the people who lost their homes can get back in the market with the leftover homes that the last guy in line bought. These will be smaller homes that these idiots can actually afford.

Waiting for the market to raise my equity by bailing out defaulted homeowners will take too long and makes no sense to me.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM

This is why it is so dangerous to allow Democrats to hold power.

Buy Danish on October 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Um, wasn’t it just 2 short years ago that Republicans had the House, Senate, and Presidency?

So please explain why they are soooo much better?

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Waiting for the market to raise my equity by bailing out defaulted homeowners will take too long and makes no sense to me.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Interesting enough, houses in my Middle Class neighborhood are not defaulting…

And don’t stay on the market long… so someone out there is buying… and selling… although prices have dropped (still not a bad thing, even with a 30% “decrease” in value, my 10 year old house is still worth more than I origionaly paid for it).

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Me too, but right now I’m paying for the mistakes of others since I live in an ACORN-babyfied neighborhood.

We’re all paying one way or the other. I’m paying in Phoenix from all the west coast investors who bought multiple homes and then abandoned or rented them when things got tough. And from the illegals who fraudulently bought homes, removed the equity and then disappeared.

But cotninuing this madness and having the govt decide who is “worthy” is not IMO the answer.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:42 PM

If you do not understand how the economy works….please do not comment on this thread.

Those of you that DO understand how the economy works.. you know that this is a HUGE positive for the Mccain camp and can finally look forward to some relief from this current economic crisis.

How can you not see that this is a HUGE positive for Mccain??

He just won the debate on the economy hands down!

He is providing leadership and showcasing American ingenuity.

People want a president who will FIX the economy…not some moron who will do nothing and let it crash and burn.

SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM

So please explain why they are soooo much better?

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Conservatives are on shaky ground here which is why many cry out for returning to true conservative values.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 1:23 PM

If the govt is going to meddle, why not send me the $50 grand so I can sell my house and buy another one. Consider it a rebate and make it contingent on actually buying another house.

Because in a crashlanded market, by the time you’re in a position to take the rebate, it won’t cover even half of what you’d need. The McCain plan simply aims to address the MBS mess on the front end as well as on the back end, effectively as part of the already-passed bailout, and at the same time saves you the equity and saves the government the $50 grand commitment, with the added advantage of reducing a lot of misery and uncertainty.

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM

People who pay higher percentages should get commensurate voting power for the rate – though I do agree wtih you that those who don’t pay taxes shouldn’t get any vote at all.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 12:30 PM

I’ll go in for that, but only as far as tax law is concerned.
We don’t need a plutocracy with the rich setting foreign policy. (Well, anymore than they already do)

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM

(That was a reply to Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM, not a reply to myself.)

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 1:47 PM

If you do not understand how the economy works….please do not comment on this thread.

People want a president who will FIX the economy…not some moron who will do nothing and let it crash and burn.

SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM

If you do not understand how the Free Enterprise system, and the CONSTITUTION works,… please don’t comment in this thread…

Those who wish to stifle dissent only proove that their own arguments are lacking…

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM

If you do not understand how the economy works….please do not comment on this thread.
SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Last time I checked, anyone who did not violate Hot Air’s terms could post comments. But by all means. We should all step aside and let you solve this crisis… no go ahead really.

BTW: Does that include Michelle? Can she post or not?

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM

So please explain why they are soooo much better?

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Let’s just say that when you live in a country who has been so indoctrinated by Leftist professors that comparing Obama to Bill Ayers is “racist”, people believe they have a “right” to own a home without any investment of their own money, where the majority of its citizens believe in man-made global warming and think that it’s a great idea to burn food for fuel, and think that ANWR is a beautiful plot of land that must be saved for the caribou, it’s pretty hard for reason to float to the top.

Buy Danish on October 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Conservatives REPUBLICANS are on shaky ground here which is why many cry out for returning to true conservative values.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Sorry, had to fix that…

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM

If you do not understand how the economy works….please do not comment on this thread.

SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Okay. You understand the economy. You’ve said so.

BTW, I hate to break it to you, but even the US government is not big enough to hold back the economic tides. This sort of thinking, which essentially declared recessions to be illegal, is what led us to this point.

If a house is worth $150,000, then artificially supporting it at $250,000 helps no one and is untenable and unsustainable. But, I guess that’s not part of what you “know” about the economy.

Well, we have a nice look at the well-intentioned entrance to a multi-decade economic tunnel (with a good chance of a dictatorship rising, or just the dissolution of the US) that people think is the best way to go.

If you really knew anything about economics you would know that pain cannot be outlawed. It can only be diverted, intensified and spread.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Because in a crashlanded market, by the time you’re in a position to take the rebate, it won’t cover even half of what you’d need. The McCain plan simply aims to address the MBS mess on the front end as well as on the back end, effectively as part of the already-passed bailout, and at the same time saves you the equity and saves the government the $50 grand commitment, with the added advantage of reducing a lot of misery and uncertainty.

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM

I don’t know who you are referring to when you say “saves you the equity”. Are you talking about me or the HO being bailed out? How would it save me the equity?

So if the govt has to return the rate to say %4 and also reduce the mortgage by $50 grand so the equity is correct, isn’t that the sanme as sending me the money?

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Hate to be pessimistic, but our only chance will soon be an American Cinncinatus…

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM

I am beginning to wonder how much of this is related to the way that the FED tries to smooth out economic growth. Are we loosing something by prolonging the expansions? Are we making the stalls and contractions worse?
I wonder if the fed should actually try to enhance the yearly business cycle. I haven’t seen the statistics in a while, but I seem to remember that the first quarter usually has the weakest growth: perhaps the fed should make money tight each first quarter, and looser in the third and fourth. Maybe then we could shake out the frauds and deflate the bubbles before they turn into a mess like this.

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Sorry, had to fix that…

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Thanks. You are correct. Typing in anger I think.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM

I’ll go in for that, but only as far as tax law is concerned.
We don’t need a plutocracy with the rich setting foreign policy. (Well, anymore than they already do)

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM

I understand the concern, but if taxes are kept low and fairly flat then there won’t be that much of a difference. If we went to a flat tax, then there would only be those who pay/vote (lower-middle class and up) and those who don’t.

All in all, the rich are few in number, so the weighted voting wouldn’t be anything near a takeover. The bulk of votes would still be in the middle class/upper middle class.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM
If a house is worth $150,000, then artificially supporting it at $250,000 helps no one and is untenable and unsustainable. But, I guess that’s not part of what you “know” about the economy.
progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Even intrinsic value is contingent on changes in underlying fundamentals. If these fundamental change, the price and value of the asset changes. There is no magic number that something is worth in spite of everything. House prices are dependent both on the availability of credit and the economic status of potential buyers. Take away these supports and assets (in this case homes) are actually worth less.

phronesis on October 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM

I don’t know who you are referring to when you say “saves you the equity”. Are you talking about me or the HO being bailed out? How would it save me the equity?

Well, I don’t know your personal situation. But if the time comes for you to sell your house or try to re-finance and, because 1) prices have been stabilized, 2) the housing market is unfrozen, 3) the economy isn’t in depression, and 4) FDRbama hasn’t gotten very busy, your neighborhood comps don’t include several foreclosures, distress sales, and appraisals at 50% or less of today’s values, then, yes, it’ll have saved you a lot of money.

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Because in a crashlanded market, by the time you’re in a position to take the rebate, it won’t cover even half of what you’d need.
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Are you just making this up as you go along?

I’m ready right now! Have them send me the money. I owe $150,000 and with another $50,000 I would sell today and put 20% down on that empty condo from the builder within walking distance of work, which in a reasonable RE market, I could have done 2 years ago. It’s a win for me and a win for the builder who’s been sitting on the condo for 2 years.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM

BTW, I hate to break it to you, but even the US government is not big enough to hold back the economic tides. This sort of thinking, which essentially declared recessions to be illegal, is what led us to this point.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM

To bolster your point, I would add that the entire, and tiny country of Iceland is on the verge of bankruptcy, brought about by the extreme leverage and poor investments of its major banks.

It is not at all clear that small countries in Europe and elsewhere have enough national wealth to cover the potential losses caused by their banks.

What if one of our new “too big to fail banks” fails? Have you watched the stock price of BAC in the past couple days??

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Hate to be pessimistic, but our only chance will soon be an American Cinncinatus…

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM

We’re not there, yet, but coming dangerously close. Unfortunately, we’ve been offered Benedict Hussein Arnold on the Dem side and Goofy on the Rep side.

I’m still voting for Goofy, but I have no illusions about how things are probably going to go (though I wish I did).

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Indeed. On the bright side, the US defaulting on our debt hurts others much worse than us.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM

You have got to be kidding! You can’t get a loan with numbers like that?

Sure I can get a loan. What I can’t get is the same reduced interest rate on my existing mortgage that all these people I am about to bail out are getting.

Seriously. They are on an ARM at maybe 4.275. That’s the rate they can “afford”, so that’s the rate they are going to get guaranteed by the government.

Well dammit, how about 4.275 for me?

Bank: Not. On. Your. Life.

Although overnight interbank lending rates fell after the central bank cuts, longer-term borrowing rates remained stubbornly high…

krakatoa on October 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM

I understand the concern, but if taxes are kept low and fairly flat then there won’t be that much of a difference. If we went to a flat tax, then there would only be those who pay/vote (lower-middle class and up) and those who don’t.

All in all, the rich are few in number, so the weighted voting wouldn’t be anything near a takeover. The bulk of votes would still be in the middle class/upper middle class.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Are you sure you aren’t underestimating what fraction of taxes are payed by those with the highest incomes?
Though I will grant you that their do seem to be self-correcting mechanisms to the idea. I just worry about Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros being able to dictate the funding of the military.

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Me too, but right now I’m paying for the mistakes of others since I live in an ACORN-babyfied neighborhood. I have no more part in this than, say, the Czechoslovakians had when the Soviets invaded.

And we’re all paying because we haven’t been able to drill or refine our own oil, or build nuclear power plants. Oh, and let’s not forget how we’re paying for the ethanol scam with higher food prices.

This is why it is so dangerous to allow Democrats to hold power.

Buy Danish on October 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Yep. The McCain/Palin energy plan alone could be enough to bring us right back into the black.

Was I the only one yesterday who heard Obama repeat over and over again that we need to REDUCE our oil consumption and REDUCE our energy consumption?

He wants to kill off a hugely profitable sector of the economy. McCain/Palin want to grow it, and thus create hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs for Americans.

It’s a no brainer.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM

We should all step aside and let you solve this crisis… no go ahead really.

Lol!

OK go ahead and bash Mccain and help Barack Hussein Ubama win the presidency and destroy the country beyond repair.

In all seriousness does Michelle really think Ubama would be better than our only other choice…John Mccain?

OF COURSE NOT!

SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Yes. I was thinking of voting power being related to percentage rate paid, not absolute dollars paid, but you make a good point. Nothing is perfect.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Indeed. On the bright side, the US defaulting on our debt hurts others much worse than us.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM

One of the up sides of being in debt: your lenders have a vested interest in your continued success.

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM

krakatoa on October 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Check this out:
http://home.ingdirect.com/products/products.asp?s=OMAHP

great rate, easy to work with, close in less than 30 days. we just did a refi with them, and it was smooth as glass

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Yep. The McCain/Palin energy plan alone could be enough to bring us right back into the black.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM

I’m not sure about coming into the black, but opening up all domestic drilling and getting a quick start on 40 or 50 nuke plants would be a MAJOR step in solving many problems, simultaneously. But McCain has to step all over his own idea by railing on with the moronic global warming cr*p. I wish McCain would have also repeated his excellent line about our nuclear navy having run on nukes safely for decades – to alleviate some people’s fears.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Yes. I was thinking of voting power being related to percentage rate paid, not absolute dollars paid, but you make a good point. Nothing is perfect.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM

But I do think “absolute dollars paid” is a fairly reasonable way of determining tax laws. Of course, iteration becomes an issue: “I pay the most taxes now, so I say I pay none later.”

…and I just got booted. What gives?

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Indeed. On the bright side, the US defaulting on our debt hurts others much worse than us.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Did you have to point that out? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Are you just making this up as you go along?

I’m ready right now! Have them send me the money. I owe $150,000 and with another $50,000 I would sell today and put 20% down on that empty condo from the builder within walking distance of work, which in a reasonable RE market, I could have done 2 years ago. It’s a win for me and a win for the builder who’s been sitting on the condo for 2 years.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM

In case you haven’t noticed, we’re all making things up as we go along now – that’s what’s got so many people so unsure and so ready to embrace Big Government Solutions To All That Perplexes and Frightens.

Maybe I don’t understand your idea, or maybe you don’t understand mine. Like I said, I don’t know your personal situation, but, as a wise or at least rich man said, “It’s not about you.” It’s not about me or him either. It’s about paying the bill for many years of lies, delusions, and bad ideas. The costs will be socialized, just as the bubble was blown up socially, just as the politicians who allowed it to happen were elected and re-elected.

I guess some of you see this as the moment to make your free market argument. Maybe. Maybe it’s a good time to make the argument, but it’s a pretty hopeless time to win it.

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Don’t think you understand my point, Funky.

I’ve got a “great” rate at just over 6%. I want the same GREAT rate all these deadbeats are going to be getting.

Sure I can refi, but as the story I linked points out, the banks aren’t in much of a hurry to drop their fixed long-term rates. So I could shave three tenths now, and maybe it would be worth the refi costs, but…

The 30 year fixed is now @ 5.82. That’s not even in the same solar system as 4.275.

krakatoa on October 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM

I’m still voting for Goofy, but I have no illusions about how things are probably going to go (though I wish I did).

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM

yeah, if we’re really lucky,it will only be as awful as, let’s say, the period between the amnesty vote and now.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM

smooth as silk. smooth as a baby’s bottom is INGdirect.

I just saw they have a 4.5% CD.

http://home.ingdirect.com/products/products.asp?s=OCDHP

Colonial Bank is offering 4.25% on a 12 month CD here in town. They are a solid bank too.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM

HUD: Five Million Fraudulent Mortgages Held by Illegals

Fletch54 on October 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM

People who are already past the anger/denial phase,and have moved on to resignation, would tell you to just shut up and pay, as you have no choice. Supposedly soon, we will all be there.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM

petunia on October 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
What future price are the rescued companies/banks/homeowners being asked to pay? How are they being required to share any future profits/equity with those who are now bailing them out?

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM

You have already stated that you consider your house solely as shelter, not an asset. In that case your interest is more compared to a renter who pays taxes.

Renters are the only ones who are truly hurt. Although, I haven’t contemplated the relation on the cost of rentals by this. Increase in rents or lower rents? I can’t decide.

But for all homeowners there is real monetary (or equity)value in keeping homes in their neighborhoods from foreclosure.

Most homeowners put the 20% in their homes and will need that 20% when they go to buy a new home. So by protecting the equity in everyone else’s home the government is helping all homeowners. While perserving the ability of non-distressed homeowners to buy at the somewhat inflated prices that have to persist or many more people will just walk away from upside down mortgages.

Since this debacle inflated the price of all homes most home owners will likely gain something in the long run–keeping at least part of the increased equity over and above the “normal” inflation equity. A higher net worth has value in many financial areas.

I’m not sure what “future price” is assessed against those who are bailed out. Clearly there is not justice for the people who caused this they will go on as always and probably make lots more money.

Distressed homeowners will probably have their credit wrecked for the forseeable future and will have a more difficult time getting loans and pay higher interest when they do. That could be seen as a “price”. Maybe there will be tax liabilities against the write down.

petunia on October 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM

SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM

+1

It’s time to get practical, people, and get McCain elected.

Or go ahead and throw your votes away on Barr.

Y-not on October 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Sarah on Fox now.

artchick on October 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM

1) prices have been stabilized, 2) the housing market is unfrozen, 3) the economy isn’t in depression, and 4) FDRbama hasn’t gotten very busy

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM

1) prices have been stabilized.
If it happens, in say 1 year, how long do I have to wait before my equity rises $50,000? 1 year? 2 years? 3 years? 4 years? 5 years? Stabilized prices does nothing for me in selling my house in say the next six months. In the meantime, someone who doesn’t deserve it, gets immediate relief. How is that fair to me?

2) The housing market is unforzen.
See #1 above. I have to wait several years for enough equity to sell my house.

3) the economy isn’t in depression
Big leap of faith there.

4) FDRbama hasn’t gotten very busy
Mccain needs to win on principles – not IMO pandering and thumbing his nose at the Constitution.

Note: I haven’t refreshed my screen yet, but my apologies for my “are you making this up as you go along” comment. That was too personal, rude and flip. We are all here because we are concerned about the country.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM

I’m not sure about coming into the black, but opening up all domestic drilling and getting a quick start on 40 or 50 nuke plants would be a MAJOR step in solving many problems, simultaneously. But McCain has to step all over his own idea by railing on with the moronic global warming cr*p. I wish McCain would have also repeated his excellent line about our nuclear navy having run on nukes safely for decades – to alleviate some people’s fears.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM

I thought he did mention the Navy and safe nukes last night.

And if packaging nuke power in the happy wrapping of global warming sells it, I say get out that giftwrap.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM

But I do think “absolute dollars paid” is a fairly reasonable way of determining tax laws.

Yes, that would be reasonable. But I think that percentage measures would just as fair and easier to implement – as percentage is the general measure we use for most returns. It would also help to tie general taxation policy more directly to voting rights, where it really needs to be kept in check.

Of course, iteration becomes an issue: “I pay the most taxes now, so I say I pay none later.”

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Then they would vote themselves out of having a vote.

There are always going to be self-interests competing. The key is to keep them as closely tied to our national interests as possible and in competition with each other.

Of course, our courts would probably make a total mess of anything we do, so …

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM

In case you haven’t noticed, we’re all making things up as we go along now –
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Thanks for not giving me back what I deserved. Please see my previous note of apology.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Colonial Bank is offering 4.25% on a 12 month CD here in town. They are a solid bank too.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Please check your assumptions. CNB has had a very rocky time, as evidenced by it’s stock price. From a high of about 25 sometime last year, to about 3 last week.

What makes you think it’s a solid bank.

btw, I am NOT talking about it not being safe for Depositors under the FDIC limit.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM

I thought he did mention the Navy and safe nukes last night.

That must have been one of the moments I was so disgusted that I turned the TV off. I didn’t hear him say it when he first answered the global warming question (and introduced the nukes) but I’m glad he got it in, later. He needs to POUND that line home at every opportunity.

And if packaging nuke power in the happy wrapping of global warming sells it, I say get out that giftwrap.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Yes. I was puking on the rug when he talked about global warming but actually started smiling, and cheering, when he seguewayed into nukes.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Sarah on Fox now.

artchick on October 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Thx for the tip.

I don’t usually comment on the candidates’ outfits, but I have to say Sarah looks much better in deep colors than in either black or white. She has the coloring to pull it off and she would stand out better against the crowd in the background. At the very least, she should wear a color that contrasts with McCain’s suit. I’d put her in either royal blue and red.

Y-not on October 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM

The 30 year fixed is now @ 5.82. That’s not even in the same solar system as 4.275.

krakatoa on October 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Um, really, if letting people keep a 4.275% mortgage interest rate keeps them paying on time, and living in that house I’m all for it.

The alternative is to have it go into foreclosure, get snapped up (after a year of sitting empty and degrading in condition) by an investor who then rents it out to section 8 tenants, in many cases. No thanks.

Banks don’t maintain their foreclosed properties. If houses sit empty for years they fall apart and get taken over by pigeons, squirrels, racoons or other pests. That will destroy a neighborhood really fast.

So the fact that these people may get a 4.275% 30 year fixed rate mortgage doesn’t really chap my hide.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Home Mortgage Resurgence Act……

….turn on fox news lorien1973, McCain is talking about it now.

Mcguyver on October 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Yes. I was puking on the rug when he talked about global warming but actually started smiling, and cheering, when he seguewayed into nukes.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM

I was driving my son and a friend to soccer practice…yelled NUCLEAR POWER at the radio when he first started talking LOL

and was pleased he went that direction with his answer, obviously

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM

So the fact that these people may get a 4.275% 30 year fixed rate mortgage doesn’t really chap my hide.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Why don’t you get one? Also, a 1 1/2 point difference in int. rate over 30 years is alot of money. Perhaps those who recieve that benefit in order to stay in their houses now should enter into a legal obligation to pay the treasury/taxpayer back in the future as the emergency recedes.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Please check your assumptions. CNB has had a very rocky time, as evidenced by it’s stock price. From a high of about 25 sometime last year, to about 3 last week.

What makes you think it’s a solid bank.

btw, I am NOT talking about it not being safe for Depositors under the FDIC limit.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM

. (NYSE)
7.01 -0.27 (-3.71%) Oct 8 2:34pm ET
Open: 7.12
High: 7.30
Low: 6.40
Volume: 2,452,150
Avg Vol: 5,058,000
Mkt Cap: 1.42B

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Thanks for not giving me back what I deserved. Please see my previous note of apology.

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM

No offense taken – or not much anyway (I’ve been called a lot worse). I appreciate and share your desire for civility.

CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 2:38 PM

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Seriously, nothing you just reported answers my question. But unless you are a stockholder, I wouldn’t worry. But any bank that’s paying 4 1/2% for 12 mos. CD that isn’t desperate for deposits is fishy.

You could have picked much nicer looking statistics off of Yahoo finance for Washington Mutual the day before it failed.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Home Mortgage Resurgence Act……

….turn on fox news lorien1973, McCain is talking about it now.

Mcguyver on October 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM

At work. Maybe someone will post the video later.

lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Y-not on October 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM

She was wearing white the other day and she was totally hot.

lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 2:41 PM

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM

I should add that my understanding is that not a few stockholders in that bank are hoping for a buyout from Citi or someone else, especially now that they lost Wachovia and might need a southern presence.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Why don’t you get one? Also, a 1 1/2 point difference in int. rate over 30 years is alot of money. Perhaps those who recieve that benefit in order to stay in their houses now should enter into a legal obligation to pay the treasury/taxpayer back in the future as the emergency recedes.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Can’t you see any economic benefit to stablizing the credit and housing markets? I see an advantage. Of course it is counter intuitive but there is real benefit to everyone. Just as there is real loss in this market. All of us suffer. Actually not me so much… well I didn’t go to Europe this year as I had planned. But that is trivial compared to losing your house.

petunia on October 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Yep. The McCain/Palin energy plan alone could be enough to bring us right back into the black.

Was I the only one yesterday who heard Obama repeat over and over again that we need to REDUCE our oil consumption and REDUCE our energy consumption?

He wants to kill off a hugely profitable sector of the economy. McCain/Palin want to grow it, and thus create hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs for Americans.

McCain/Palin want to build nuclear power plants. They want to build more coal plants. They want to actually go after our own oil instead of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemies overseas every year.

I think the amount of money our nation sends to overseas oil producers every year about equals the total amount of Hank Paulson’s piggy bank. With McCain/Palin in the White House a hell of a lot of that money will stay right her in the USA.

It’s a no brainer.

But because of 1.75% on a mortgage rate you are willing to elect Obama.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM

petunia on October 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Yes, indeed. And I enjoy your comments. They are well argued and thought out. I think by parsing it we can twink the rescue around the edges and try to re-instill some kind of moral hazard into the equation. People need an incentive to be good and play by the rules. That incentive is justice. There has to be an attempt at it, even if it comes late.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Are you just trying to be nasty? WaMu set up branches in the inner cities and went on a subprime mortgage giveaway orgy many years ago. My dad knew they were destined to fail 5 years ago.

Colonial Bank hasn’t done that. They are fine.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM

So Michelle does not like this? Shocker! I think MM knows as much about this as she does port terminals, which is nothing. She is a pundit, and she likes controversy, it sells.

This is not about people not paying for their mistakes, this is about finding a bottom to this decline so that we all don’t pay for this crisis. It will effect a lot more people than just these homeowners.

I don’t particularly get a sadistic thrill out seeing people rendered homeless rather than allowing them to make payments on the homes they are living in. Maybe some do. Maybe some people want to see thousands and thousands of people homeless and a housing industry in a deep recession. I don’t. I think a plan like this has a good chance of working.

The interesting thing is we could let these people lose everything and they go on federal assistance and pay rent somewhere and that would probably be okay fine with the purists. Even though it would ultimately be more costly.

Meanwhile everyday ordinary people who never took out a bad loan and who paid their bills could end up losing in terms of home value and equity, tight credit markets, lost jobs and a lot of other unpleasant things.

Terrye on October 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Not to belabor the point,but I think we will begin to see many many more bank failures/consolidations. That will look and feel bad, but will actually be good. :)

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Are you just trying to be nasty? WaMu set up branches in the inner cities and went on a subprime mortgage giveaway orgy many years ago. My dad knew they were destined to fail 5 years ago.

Colonial Bank hasn’t done that. They are fine.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM

No, honestly. Not at all.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:48 PM

She was wearing white the other day and she was totally hot.

lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 2:41 PM

She always looks great, imho, but I actually didn’t like the white outfit either. There were lots of folks behind her in white t-shirts at that rally so I found it hard to pick her up in the crowd. I was going to comment on that thread but I was afraid I’d start a string of “naughty nurse” comments! We need her to be taken seriously, so I try to avoid those sorts of threads.

Y-not on October 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Can’t you see any economic benefit to stablizing the credit and housing markets?

petunia on October 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM

We all see the benefits to that, but the question is whether a proposed plan WILL actually stabilize markets or just contribute to more instability. On that, no one knows the answer. That’s why Paulson’s $700 billion figure was pulled out of thin air. Everyone is guessing and anyone who declares that they will stabilize things with some specific policy are not being honest. We do know that things stabilize near the bottom, but that’s about all we know.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM

JiangX:

So what is justice? Homelessness? And what about the rest of us? What is justice for us?

This is a deflationary spiral, many of these people had no idea that the loans they got were anything but legal and reputable. We can argue all day that they are bad people who need to suffer for their sins, but the truth is most of these homeowners are decent people doing the best they can.

Some of them are speculators, but the truth is most of the speculators were on the lending side of the deal, not the borrowing side of the deal. These people are still going to be responsible for these mortgages, no one is saying they get to houses for free.

Terrye on October 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

petunia on October 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Please read the above link, and especialy pay attention to the charts at the bottom, about how much “bank money” or M2 and M3 money is now in the system.

What we have is a long term Economic game going, where everyone is playing with Markers, not cash. You only need 10% of your betting limit as a buy in…

Problem is, that once someone leaves the game, and markers are called in, then others, seeing the amount of capital on the table diminishing, call in their markers as well… and the whole house of cards falls down.

Worldwide credit is frozen because EVERYONE is trying to protect their own positions… ie… trying to figure out if the game is going to continue, or if its time to cash in and find another game.

Whole system is is stable ONLY as long as their is no large strain on the market… currently, the US housing market is that strain, and the US Government is betting that if they take that strain off the market, everyone will start to play nice again… I’m not so sure as we have just prooven the market is UNSTABLE.

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM

HUD: Five Million Fraudulent Mortgages Held by Illegals

Fletch54 on October 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM

*Twitch*
That one is leaving me in this empty place.
I don’t think I can comprehend how outraged that will make me feel when my mind finally acknowledges it.

Count to 10 on October 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Was I the only one yesterday who heard Obama repeat over and over again that we need to REDUCE our oil consumption and REDUCE our energy consumption?

He wants to kill off a hugely profitable sector of the economy.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM

And BHO lies like crazy claiming that that strategy will create net jobs, which is beyond a joke. And McCain let him get away with it, twice that I saw.

McCain owns this issue in every way but doesn’t know what to say about it.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Y-not on October 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Blasphemer!!

lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

progressoverpeace:

I think there is a good chance it will help, where as doing nothing certainly won’t.

All these people are complaining because they say we have to accept the fact that there are no sure things in the market and let things go which way they will….but when someone comes up with a plan like this they want an absolute guarantee up front that it will work perfectly or they won’t accept it.

Terrye on October 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Terrye on October 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Terrye,we’ve been through this before. People who lose a house they never really had any ability to pay for, and/or never lived in, and /or never had any of their own money invested in, are only technically homeowners.

If/when the bank forecloses, they don’t become homeless, they become what they always were, renters.

JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Terrye on October 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM

But on the other side of the arguement we see the downfall of this great experiment called the US.

It was based on the idea of selfreliance, and built on a system of the government staying out of our business as much as possible.

The government was supposed to be a Referee, and make sure everyone was equal under the law, not a Judge who decided winners and losers.

Now we see blatant wealth redistribution through the tax system… and now soon through contract law about private property.

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM

lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Well, I am a chick. Whaddya’ expect? At least I said she looks great! ;-)

Y-not on October 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Y-not on October 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM

Too funny. I was thinking about what she was wearing too. I think she looks great in blue and red and agree about deep colors. As far as neutrals go with her reddish brown hair I think navy blue would look good on her, much better than black. If she wears black/charcoal it should be blue based, a blue black. Also, the other day in the interview with Carl Cameron on fox, she looked great in the chocolate brown jacket. The brown was less harsh than black and the neckline on that jacket was very flattering on her. Emerald green would be a good color on her.

artchick on October 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Terrye on October 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

As I posted much earlier in the thread, I’m not against helping homeowners stave off default, but they have to pay by having their votes taken away, and I would want to have those houses marked in some way so that they can’t hide their irresponsibility from the public.

I am also extremely distressed that none of our PC laws that caused all this have been repealed, or even discussed.

And we also have to worry about our courts mucking everything up. If they can force us to release Chinese muslim terrorists into DC, then there is no depth to the depravity of our judiciary, and they will destroy everything. That is something that must be taken into account.

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Yeah, I just today got an advertisment for a Re Fi… no Social Security Number or credit check needed…

Wow… stuck on stupid.

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Also, the other day in the interview with Carl Cameron on fox, she looked great in the chocolate brown jacket. The brown was less harsh than black and the neckline on that jacket was very flattering on her. Emerald green would be a good color on her.

artchick on October 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM

I’ve noticed on these threads that the guys don’t like her in browns. Not “hawt” enough! However, I bet lots of our HA posters would like her in camouflage! :-)

I think it’s great that she is so lovely to look at — what a nice change of pace from so many political women. I have it good, however, because for some reason my husband doesn’t think she’s particularly good-looking (he likes redheads), so there’s no threat there!

Y-not on October 8, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Funky:

Let me put it this way.

If one of these deadbeats bought the twin of my house when I did, they would have paid 3000/yr less than I with their ARM.

In the end, under this bailout, they get the same house as I do for 90000 dollars less.

This is, for all intents and purposes, a 90000 dollar penalty on me for buying the house I could afford, versus the house I wanted.

The deadbeats made a gamble, bought the house they wanted on terms they knew they couldn’t afford without step 3 (I pull a rabbit out of the hat), and all us responsible types get to be the bunny the government pulls out of the hat so the deadbeats can move on to step 4. Profit.

You want to make me feel better about a bailout? Mandate that these deadbeats have to pay me back for supporting their poor decisions when they realize their capital gains.

But the best McCain can come up with is more government bailouts, and the inevitable higher taxes those bailouts will cost.

krakatoa on October 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM

:speechless:

progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM

lol I bet you are right about the camo. :-) I’m blonde and my hubby thinks she is ok looking, but the guys on his fishing board are in LOVE. They think she is HOT. I’m sure they would love to see her in camo!

I wouldn’t call her a redhead, but to me her hair looks brown with red highlights. At least that is how it looks on my tv.

artchick on October 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM

But the best McCain can come up with is more government bailouts, and the inevitable higher taxes those bailouts will cost.

krakatoa on October 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM

It’s not “more” it is the SAME. It is just having control over how it is used and trying to save as much money as possible.

petunia on October 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM

I love you Ed … but you’re wrong on this … dead wrong.

First … I’m tired of people comparing the government to a “business”. It’s ludicrous to say … “Oh well … we the taxpayer could make money on this deal”.

When is the LAST TIME the government ever ran anything smart enough to make a profit for the taxpayer? Social Security? Medicare? Fannie Mae? FOR CRYIN’ OUT LOUD. The government doesn’t know how to turn a profit. How is the government going to “fend off” special interest groups like ACORN … who are already trying to figure out how to get their constituents to keep their $200,000 dollar homes for $100K or less?

I live in a $200K house and I made more money last year than Sarah Palin did. What do you think will happen if my next door neighbor stops paying his mortgage because he’s “angry” it’s not worth $200K anymore? ABSOLUTELY WHAT IS THIS MINDSET ABOUT FOLKS? If you buy a house … and it goes down in value … you keep paying on your mortgage … I AM!!

So my neighbor gets bought out and presto chango … his new mortgage is $150K. So he opts to SELL his house at $160K and pocket a cool $10K profit. Meanwhile … guess what … my house is now worth $160K because that’s what he just sold his at. And because he refused to pay his mortgage … the government has now given him a competive edge over me (me … who played by the stinkin’ rules) … and he can sell his house at $160K for a profit while I would take a $40 THOUSAND DOLLAR LOSS by doing the same thing.

All because I’m a responsible individual.

It ain’t happenin’ …

I may not be able to constitutionally STOP this crap. But I WILL find a way to recoup my tax dollars even it means I will be one of those “defaulting” homeowners. The only way to beat these guys seems to be by joining them.

GAAAAAAhhhhh!

HondaV65 on October 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM

If you do not understand how the economy works….please do not comment on this thread.
SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Thus spake the Huckabee supporter.

Bwwwwhahaha.

LevStrauss on October 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Yeah, I just today got an advertisment for a Re Fi… no Social Security Number or credit check needed…

Wow… stuck on stupid.

Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM

See, that’s the kind of thing that ought to be illegal. You know and I know that any loan anybody gives you on those terms is going to be a terrible deal for you. Maybe not the first year, but somewhere they are gonna go all loan shark on you.

Every mortgage we ever got was like a financial colonoscopy, so it really does confuse me that those kinds of offers exist.

I do remember getting lots of solicitations from my (Delaware based, interestingly enough) credit card companies that read “be the envy of your friends and neighbors. use our easy checks to take that Club Med vacation, or buy that high end home theater you’ve always wanted.”

I got those pitches over and over for years until I closed those card accounts. They must actually be effective if they keep using them. But damn, it’s beyond unfortunate that people are really that dumb.

funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 3:48 PM

We can argue all day that they are bad people who need to suffer for their sins, but the truth is most of these homeowners are decent people doing the best they can.

Terrye on October 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Most? Do we know the total and what % are decent people? I don’t. Do you? For example, see below:

“HUD: Five Million Fraudulent Mortgages Held by Illegals
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
One illegal alien was arrested this year in Tucson after allegedly using a stolen social security number to buy two homes and rack up over $780,000 in bad debt.

Some five million fraudulent home mortgages are in the hands of illegal aliens, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“It’s not known how many of those have contributed to the subprime housing mortgage meltdown, but it has affected every state, including Arizona.

“The problem began years ago when banks were forced to give mortgages without confirming social security numbers or borrower identification. As a result, illegal immigrants were able to obtain home mortgages which they could not afford.

“One illegal alien was arrested this year in Tucson after allegedly using a stolen social security number to buy two homes and rack up over $780,000 in bad debt.” -emphasis added

Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM

This may be a little Off-topic,
During the debate last night and during many press conferences people are talking about companies not being able to borrow money to make payroll. If a company needs to borrow money to make payroll, is the fact that money is hard to borrow really their worst problem? Is it just me or has anyone else thought about that?

Guest1.1 on October 8, 2008 at 4:04 PM

“really their worst problem”
Maybe it should read
“really their biggest problem”

Guest1.1 on October 8, 2008 at 4:05 PM

If a company needs to borrow money to make payroll, is the fact that money is hard to borrow really their worst problem? Is it just me or has anyone else thought about that?

Guest1.1 on October 8, 2008 at 4:04 PM

No. Accounts receivables are hard to receive on time all the time..almost every business relies on A/R financing.
Without A/R financing millions and millions will be laid off.

SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Thus spake the Huckabee supporter.

LevStrauss on October 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Refresh my memory and tell me which serious candidate was planning on eliminating the income tax?

That’s right…Mike Huckabee!

SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 4:18 PM

SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Thanks, That makes sense.

Guest1.1 on October 8, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4


You must be logged in to post a comment.