Who does this new housing program help?
posted at 9:30 am on October 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Yesterday, the Obama administration rolled out a revamped program to help homeowners stave off foreclosures, clearly yearning to provide a game-changer for their record on the economy. However, when an Obama cheerleader like Mark Zandi only calls it a “single .. not a home run” and a “small step,” then a closer look at the details is in order. CNBC’s Diana Olick does just that and discovers that the new program won’t help anyone who has actually fallen behind on their mortgage:
In other words, this is exactly the same kind of Cash for Clunkers approach that Barack Obama has taken with economic policy all along, He will spend tens of billions of dollars to play the string out a little longer without actually changing conditions in the market. Houses will still be underwater, thanks to a lack of qualified buyers, and the only people who will get re-fi help are going to be those who are still making their payments on time and who won’t get foreclosed anyway.
So this new program will be of limited value to an even more limited number of people. US News says the program will mainly benefit one household — the White House-hold:
HARP went into effect in the spring of 2009, with the expectation of helping 4 million to 5 million troubled homeowners refinance their mortgages. Thus far, fewer than 1 million have done so. While the pool of eligible borrowers will no longer be limited by diminished home values, HARP refinancing will still only be available to people who are current on their mortgage payments and who have had no more than one late payment in the last year. “There’s a class of homeowners that are severely underwater that are current on their payments that this will help,” says Morris Davis, academic director of the James A. Graaskamp Center for Real Estate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but that’s a small group. “I don’t think this is going to help many people,” he adds. …
“It’s not nothing,” says LeBas, but he also points out that “not everybody, of course, will pay attention.” Even if all newly eligible homeowners did pay attention, the potential macroeconomic boost from the policy could still be minimal. LeBas says that the average home loan is around $350,000, and a decrease in interest from 4.5 percent to 3.5 percent would mean monthly payment savings of roughly $200. In the unlikely event that all 220,000 eligible homeowners decide to take advantage of the new rules, the annual boost in savings would be roughly $530 million dollars–pocket change compared to $10 trillion in U.S. annual consumer spending. …
The program is also clearly designed to make a difference for President Obama himself. The new rules are a part of economic initiatives the administration is billing under the tagline “We Can’t Wait.”
Well, so were Cash for Clunkers and the homebuyer tax credits. How well did they work out? Even Austan Goolsbee admitted that they were mistakes, gimmicky policies that attempted to move up expected growth that never arrived at all. We’re about to spend $50 billion rather than $3 billion to re-fi mortgages for the people who aren’t in danger of losing their homes, but just anxious about owing more than the market value of their houses. This won’t address the real source of that anxiety, and until the Obama administration pulls back on regulation and its gimmicky economic policies to create jobs and qualified home buyers, we won’t fix the housing markets at all. This only extends the uncertainty and the national debt.










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
Anything Obama proposes is just campaign rhetoric so he can say “He has a plan…nobody can say I don’t have a plan or ideas.”
albill on October 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM
So he can run a campaign ad with a po widder woman thanking Obama for keeping that eeeeevil Wall Street bank from foreclosing on her home and tossing her into the street with her orphan grandson.
Wethal on October 25, 2011 at 9:36 AM
Obama is conducting a perpetual “shell game” . . if they find the pea he changes the game. Are people really as stupid as this guy believes they are?
rplat on October 25, 2011 at 9:38 AM
Campaigning and nothing else
cmsinaz on October 25, 2011 at 9:40 AM
Go ahead and clap for his plan.
Kissmygrits on October 25, 2011 at 9:40 AM
President Bandaid.
Dude, you are going to be trounced soooooooooo bad in 2012.
fogw on October 25, 2011 at 9:40 AM
Well, yeah… but besides the fact this plan is purely political, accomplishes diddly squat, and makes the problem worse in the long run… it’s fantastic!
Man… I’m loving me some Hope and Change! Yes we can! Yes we can!
Sugar Land on October 25, 2011 at 9:43 AM
Campaigning for the ‘stupid’ vote.
listens2glenn on October 25, 2011 at 9:44 AM
What isn’t?
mankai on October 25, 2011 at 9:44 AM
Sadly, I’m one of those folks at the dinner table who realized that I was in 50% negative equity and to continue to throw good hard earned money after bad,through no fault of my own, didn’t make much sense, and we decided to just take the hit and walk away. We are fully prepared for the consequences and have prepared for it before making this move. We tried the re-fi route and was told we didn’t qualify due to high income, and mortgage not owned by Fannie/Freddie and due to being underwater. Therefore, we had to make the best decision to get out of a bad situation.
tdavisjr on October 25, 2011 at 9:46 AM
I am so sick and tired of the attitude that somehow non-bubble pricing for houses is a bad thing. A house that was $200K in 2000 then $500K in 2006 is now worth $300K. This is a good thing. Why is Obama trying so desperately to make it worth $500K again?
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 9:50 AM
Thirty two years ago; YES, Obama would be Carter.
But today, we can’t find our Reagan.
I think Palin, Santorum, and Jindal come the closest. But that’s just my opinion
listens2glenn on October 25, 2011 at 9:50 AM
Let’s see—too much Federal Government involvement (Community Reinvestment Act) caused the problem; too much Federal Government Involvement extended the problem (HAFA) so the obvious solution is MORE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT!!!
Genius.
dirtseller on October 25, 2011 at 9:51 AM
So why government, Barry? In the flaky market we have if you are an on time borrower you have exactly the kind of leverage to shop for better rates on your own. Stupid is as government does.
Limerick on October 25, 2011 at 9:51 AM
Oh please. You made the decision to buy a house at bubble inflated houses. Nobody put a gun to your head. It was your fault. You made a bad financial decision. Stop blaming others.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM
Of course, any Federal Government Involvement that keeps home prices artificially high, keeps first time buyers out of the market, which is exactly what we need to get the market moving.
Genius.
dirtseller on October 25, 2011 at 9:53 AM
Yea but sadly Obama isn’t alone in that thinking. Read any story on housing and the defacto assumption is bubble pricing is good for everyone. Nobody ever stops to think that maybe cheap housing for the masses might actually be a good thing long term.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 9:54 AM
And there is why the country is completely f***ed up, with no hope of redemption. I have high income, I made a bad investment, so instead of manning up and paying off what I owe, I’ll try to loot from my neighbors.
Just…great
MNHawk on October 25, 2011 at 9:55 AM
Obama is great at giving away other people’s money. He’s not so good at addressing the underlying problems.
Paul-Cincy on October 25, 2011 at 9:56 AM
Oh please. You made the decision to buy a house at bubble inflated houses. Nobody put a gun to your head. It was your fault. You made a bad financial decision. Stop blaming others.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM
Before criticizing others maybe you need to walk in their shoes…
sandee on October 25, 2011 at 9:57 AM
yup
cmsinaz on October 25, 2011 at 9:58 AM
Nonsense. If you’re 50% upside down on a house, it is nobody’s fault but your own for buying a house at such inflated prices. No different from the fools that put their life savings in pets.com and then sued their stock broker.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 10:00 AM
I bought my car 2 years ago. It’s now worth less than what I owe. I guess I should ask the Prez for a bailout. Of course, I could always JUST PAY OFF MY DEBTS and everything would work out fine.
dirtseller on October 25, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Why would I want to do that? I made a purposeful decision in life
to start small and work my way up. Why should I be punished, now, for having to pay for someone who wanted it all at once?
He never said he COULDN’T pay his bills. He said he didn’t want to pay his bills, because the value had falling. A textbook deadbeat.
No, I don’t want to walk in his shoes.
MNHawk on October 25, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Cool, we should all just “walk away” and let someone else deal with the problem. Of course when we’ve lined up in that circular firing squad things won’t look so great.
Bishop on October 25, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Mind you I agree with tdavisjr’s action. I’d walk away too. I just hate the “it’s not my fault” whining aspect of it. You f***ed up. Then you made the right decision by walking away from a bad investment.
Walking away is perfectly fine. The contract (mortgage) you signed says you pay back your debt. If you don’t the bank takes your house back. You abided by the contract, you stopped paying, bank took the house. Nothing immoral about that.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 10:03 AM
And another thing. I am SURE the property was purchased because the thinking was there would be a profit in a few years. NEVER by a HOME as an investment. Buy it as a life style choice. Afford it first. Plan on staying a while. And if it increases in value—-you have a win/win.
That’s the kind of thinking that was short circuited by the Community Reinvestment Act.
dirtseller on October 25, 2011 at 10:04 AM
Very true. When prices were doubling every 2 years, I didn’t hear anyone volunteer to give up their gains. But when prices dropped by 50%, everyone wants the govt to bail them out. We all want capitalism, winners and losers. That is until we’re the losers, then capitalism isn’t so hot anymore.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 10:06 AM
And everybody else, who lives responsibly, is now worse for it. Technically within the contract, probably. Morally right…not even close.
MNHawk on October 25, 2011 at 10:06 AM
Morality has nothing to do with it. It’s a business decision. No laws were broken. Now if you were hurt financially by that action, tough. That is a risk you take when purchasing a home. Your neighbor could walk away at any time. If you’re not willing to bear that risk, don’t buy a house.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 10:10 AM
Freddy and Fannie are being used to massively redistribute wealth. Who in their right mind would loan money for 30 years at 3.5% interest? With all the “quantitative easing” that will be undertaken to manage $15T of growing dept, the money paid back will be worth less than half of what was borrowed.
Banks loan it because they immediately sell those mortgages to F&F. America owns 69% of F&F. Why 69%? Because at 70%, we’d have to include its trillion dollar underfunding in our national debt. I don’t fully understand all this, but from what I know, it doesn’t look good.
elfman on October 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM
Universal Home-value Insurance – That you must buy.
that’ll fix things
/
tomg51 on October 25, 2011 at 10:12 AM
Right there with ya. People bought at inflated prices here in Florida. Really inflated. They thought these places were a piggy bank instead of a home.
katy the mean old lady on October 25, 2011 at 10:12 AM
A 30 year mortgage is closer to 4% than 3.5%. 15 year is 3.5%.
AAA Corporate bonds are yielding about 4.25% these days. The default risk on a AAA bond is not much different than the default risk on a top tier mortgage (which is what 4% is for).
It’s not a conspiracy. Long term money right now is cheap. For everyone.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM
And once again the tax payers will be stuck with the bill when these under water homeowners that refinance begin to default or walk away.
+1,000!
Oil Can on October 25, 2011 at 10:18 AM
I agree with angryed on October 25, 2011 at 10:03 AM.
Its a business decision and was carried out according to the terms of the contract. After the series of bubbles we have been through, there have been plenty of sadder-but-wiser experiences to share around among the many millions. I myself took out loans to do an English major. Go on, ask how that has worked out for me. I did pay off the loans though. And yes knuckled down to a real job.
By contrast how do you like when 2 greedy parties sit at the table and make a contract by which they both benefit, and they both agree that the taxpayer should pay all the cost of the contract? No, neither of the parties at the table is, or represents, the taxpayer. Then the patries pound the table and say the taxpayer has to stick to the contract, or it will be a terrible thing. Where is the taxpayer’s say?
perries on October 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM
I wasn’t referring to Obama’s plan as good. I’m totally against. I was trying to say that nobody knows all the circumstances that led to a particular posters story about his mortgage . Piling on is unnecessary.
sandee on October 25, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Also, to create a banking crisis that opened the way for government to take over the banks.
One shot, two trophies (in Liberal thought).
listens2glenn on October 25, 2011 at 10:22 AM
The home you live in is not an investment unless you were able to build it for far less than the sell price.
The house you live in is just that, a place to live.
If you borrowed money to buy an over priced house you are really screwed.
If you borrowed and got a great deal on the house,
after you made your last payment and add in interest, taxes, Home owners assc dues, lawn care, that new A/C unit, the roof you replaced and all the other costs including inflation. you will never come close to breaking even and then you realize that after you sell your house you are homeless.
Home ownership is at best just a really sh!tty savings mechanism.
esnap on October 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM
I know what you meant. And still disagree.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Morality has everything to do with it. When we as a society start ignoring our personal debts and obligations, society as we know it is over.
Come to think of it, society hasn’t been looking so hot lately, has it?
MNHawk on October 25, 2011 at 10:25 AM
He gave two clues. Underwater on his mortgage, and too high income for any help. That tells me he isn’t any kind of hardship case. He’s just trying to loot society, to cover for his bad investment. Behavior that punishes the responsible for benefit of the irresponsible.
MNHawk on October 25, 2011 at 10:28 AM
He gave two clues. Underwater on his mortgage, and too high income for any help. That tells me he isn’t any kind of hardship case. He’s just trying to loot society, to cover for his bad investment. Behavior that punishes the responsible for benefit of the irresponsible.
MNHawk on October 25, 2011 at 10:28 AM
I give up. I guess I will agree to disagree…
sandee on October 25, 2011 at 10:32 AM
The government caused this crisis buy using Fannie and Freddie . For 70 years the system more or less worked, until some political @sshole figured out they could these GSE to hand out goodies and political kickbacks. The policy is that everyone should own a home. So, the system was changed to easy credit to acheive this goal. This caused the housing bubble the rest is history.
So, if someone buys in 2007 and walks away 2012 at many levels I don’t have problem with it. They didn’t purchase their home under true supply and demand conditions. Going to back to market control, and not government control, is the only way housing is going to fix itself.
Oil Can on October 25, 2011 at 10:37 AM
HAVE NO FEAR….when the beltway nominiates ANOTHER LOSER like RINO ROMNEY and Barry Hussein gets another 4 years to destroy this country, all will be taken care of and the STATE will confiscate all homes anyway to redistribute those homes to those who don’t have them. (blacks and unions)
SDarchitect on October 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Why do the media continue to talk about the pros and cons of these programs? They should be talking about how they are illegal! A mortgage is a contract, and the government has now inserted itself into that contract as the one who gets to tear it up whenever it feels like it.
Does any other government in the world own and manipulate the mortgage industry?
This is madness.
PattyJ on October 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Some one please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t “this plan” only set up to reduce the interest rates, which will NOT effect the principal??? And, if this is the case, “this plan” is only a ruse to make people believe “our government” is going to help the folks who are losing their homes. Or should we invoke the Pelosi-principle and just pass the thing so we’ll know what’s in it—more government welfare.
Rovin on October 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM
As soon as I’ve completed this comment I am headed right over to AttackWatch to report this disgusting, racist, fear-mongering report by CNBC.
This “reporting” simply can not be tolerated. The People have voted for Obama and He should be able to do what He wants, He is in a hurry to save the economy and, as He said Himself, He has made all the right choices so far. The do-nothing, know-nothing congress must be bypassed in favor of The General Will.
visions on October 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM
As long as there are FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac it will be this way. In 1996 or 1998 it discovered by politicians that they could these agencies to further some polictical goal. The best thing is to privitize these agencies, so they won’t do it again or at least it will be more difficult.
Oil Can on October 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM
There are settlement talks with the AG’s of every State and the major banks to do just that, which is principal reduction. This was due to the robo-signing scandal.
Oil Can on October 25, 2011 at 10:48 AM
ATTENTION REALTORS
The NYT is blaming CUBA’S PROBLEMS ON WALL STREET!
AND…They are so desperate they are allowing some property sales.
It could not have anything to do with six or seven hundred thousand pages of regulations and laws, arresting people with cell phones or computers, two currencies and ancient leaders with backgrounds as thugs. We should help them.
Let’s send Fannie and Freddie and the CRA people down to tell them how to run it!
We want them to do it with fairness don’t we?
IlikedAUH2O on October 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM
-
Yahoo!!! Barry finally is doing something for people like me!/spits out Coolade
RalphyBoy on October 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM
You know what would really help the housing market?
JOBS!!!!!
And you know the best way to create jobs?
GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY!!!!
ButterflyDragon on October 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Historically owner occupied residential real estate has returned a real (ie after inflation) 1% return on investment. You’re just a teeny, tiny bit better off owning vs. renting over your lifetime.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Especially, when I had to put in a new roof! Oy! Or when I needed to put a sewer connection pipe!
Oil Can on October 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM
The risk of owning bonds is nothing like these mortgages. Bonds can be sold any time (other than in a free fall). Where do Americans sell $5.4T in mortgages as most of their value incrementally deflates away?
I don’t know if there’s a way to get out from under them, but I see it’s being discussed.
(Thanks for the mortgage rate correction btw)
elfman on October 25, 2011 at 11:08 AM
I bought in 2007. I did so with funds from a very modest first home I had paid off, plus additional savings. I’m now down 30% from that peak. Do I deserve any free s**t for being responsible, and living not only within my means, but under it, in order to get to a debt free point in life. Do I get any Obama stash, for not buying that $40,000 SUV on a 7 year loan, but instead driving a speck, in order to pay off my debts faster?
Maybe I truly am the 1%…Americans not living to see what they can loot from their neighbor.
MNHawk on October 25, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Yeah, ain’t Obamanomics wonderful?
GarandFan on October 25, 2011 at 11:29 AM
“MORE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT!!!”
This whole thing is designed to keep the Real Estate Taxes paid on the properties.
RADIOONE on October 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Yes, but:
What about “Fast and Furious” and the subpeonas?
What about funneling money to the many Solyndras of Obama?
What about ruling by fiat (which this topic is)?
What about Jobs?
What about ObamaCare?
What about turning off 10% of the Nations Power in Jan.?
I’ll tell what I think this mortgage thing is. Its floating the banks for another year from having more people walk away from toxic real estate. Its not about the homeowners, as someone said, a year from now they are gonna realize they are right back here.
Only next year I am going to have less money than I do now due to QE2 and double digit inflation. Power, water, food, gas, taxes all went up this year…my income – no.
orbitalair on October 25, 2011 at 11:52 AM
I just wrote a whole long thing about the misconceptions about the people that are foreclosing, but it is too long and the bottom line is all the problems with the housing market are fixed in one word::: Jobs..
I have been doing mortgages for 15 years and that is the bottom line to all the problems.
momof2 on October 25, 2011 at 11:54 AM
We should just do away with the private sector altogether. That way, we can all gather in former large cornfields and beat drums to show our displeasure with life.
Yeah…..
BobMbx on October 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Sorry, but I just can’t stand this. Home prices became inflated (thanks to the gubermint “help”) beyond sensibility. It was a bubble waiting to burst. The average mortgage is $350,000…?! WTF! Nevermind that the $350,000 house is really only worth $150,000.
Stop trying to prop up home prices. Let the markets decide what a house is worth. I feel for those that bought when prices were WAY too high. That’s life. But the flip side is people like me can’t even get into a home because prices are STILL way too high.
FlatlanderByTheLake on October 25, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Buying votes, with our money.
“Change we can believe in”…….
KMC1 on October 25, 2011 at 12:34 PM
A couple of things.
1. A mortgage and a bond are identical, just with different names. In both cases they are promissory notes backed up by real assets. If Boeing goes under, planes are liquidated, bondholders get paid what’s left. If a mortgage is defaulted on, the house is sold, the bondholders get what’s left over.
2. A mortgage value does not necessarily deflate or inflate. That’s why a mortgage has an interest rate. Now of course nobody can predict what will happen 30 years from now. But if in 30 years from now mortgage rates are at 3% and you own a mortgage note at 4%, that mortgage note is worth above par. Just like any other bond. The yield on any bond can go up or down depending on what current interest rates are. There is a risk as a lender that 10 years from now interest rates will be 10% and your money is only earning 4%. That’s life. As a lender that is the risk you’re taking. But again, it’s the same for a mortgage or for a T-bill or for a corporate bond or a CD. Debt is debt, it all works the same way.
3. Where do people sell 5.5T of mortgage? Same place they sell everything else. In the free market. There’s a really good book called Liars Poker that explains the history of the mortgage market. The author is an ex-Solomon Brothers bond trader who gives the story of how Solomon more or less created the mortgage backed security market in the 70s and 80s and the behind the scenes look at investment banking.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Refreshing to see a media outlet like CNBC actually pointing out a factual result of an administration policy. If only they had been doing so for the entire last 30 months. Let’s hope it isn’t too little, too late for them to have come around.
Cash for clunkers did nothing to aid the economy, bailouts for the same banks that were forced into handling toxic money by programs like the CRA did nothing to aid the economy, a porkulus package that only supported public-sector jobs did nothing to aid the economy. Pretty soon we’ll be asking how Madam Merkel has managed to keep Germany afloat this long against the steep rapids upon which the rest of the EU is being smashed, and if we can manage the same trick.
Regulating and conniving to try and stabilize an economy is the biggest fool’s game out there. Quite listening to Krugman, and let the market find it’s own level. Get out of the way, Mr. Resident.
Freelancer on October 25, 2011 at 12:40 PM
Diana Olick has been very good reporting on housing for CNBC. She was ahead of the curve on the bust. While most of the MSM was dismissing the idea of a housing collapse, she was saying watch out, it’s coming.
angryed on October 25, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Whoo-hoo. My wife works with responsible borrowers (turning over all the sub-prime loans to a friend at Countrywide), so maybe her income will come back to what it was 3 years ago. Not that it will help the economy, but it will help with our retirement funds, that have fluctuated over the same period of time.
There’s got to be a good side to the “black cloud” (uh-oh Ed Schultz is going to call me a racist) of the past three years.
djaymick on October 25, 2011 at 12:54 PM
yeah, these are the people who want principle write offs for these loans….a ‘jubilee’ day, just like the ows crowd and all good leftists.
repudiate your debts…yeah, great idea. actually, it is telling that barry isn’t announcing something like this…i.e. the polling must be horrible…well, plus the fragile bank industry would be harmed greatly
]
r keller on October 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM
People nearby were buying brand-new, massive $600,000-$800,000 homes for their small families with only $40,000-$50,000/year income, and that area had the highest foreclosure rate around. Responsible borrowers in modest, 20-year-old homes at half the price with twice the income are making their payments on-time, every time, plus an extra payment every year and still underwater get a chance to renegotiate their mortgages at great rates on realistic values.
Yeah, it won’t fix the big problems. So what. Cry me a river.
Christien on October 25, 2011 at 1:21 PM
The problem with this is heaping the additional burden on the taxpayer.
At a certain point, banks themselves will often see the value in offering percentage-point relief to those who are current on upside-down mortgages. (Mortgages that are greater than the value of the property mortgaged.) I know lenders in this area have started offering their own mortgage-payers refi options — because they want to keep the business of those who can keep a mortgage current, and there’s competition for that business, and keeping the income flow for the lender is better than having another foreclosure on the books, etc, etc, etc.
There’s no reason why the sorely abused taxpayer should have to fund this process. Having the taxpayer fund it will do nothing to improve or correct the situation. What we need is for the economy to rebound and property values to start climbing again. No borrowing from the taxpayers’ great-grandchildren can have that effect. Only releasing the people from the straitjacket of regulation will do the trick.
J.E. Dyer on October 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM
If anyone gets a bailout–not that anyone should, but that horse is already out of the barn, over the hill, and in the glue factory–I have the least problem with those folks who pay on-time, every time, and use the savings to invest and support local businesses and charities, rather than buy luxury items and take lavish vacations.
Christien on October 25, 2011 at 1:43 PM
If government bought or backed 97% of bonds at below market prices in order to prop up the economy for a few years, I agree that bonds would be identical to mortgages. Our national bonds are like that. We own most of them ourselves and are increasing that share. That’s why the rate is so low there too.
As America is unwilling to balance the federal budget and our national debt grows, I can’t imagine a way to finance it without more QE. No one else will buy these mortgages at face value, nor should they. I don’t know how this ends. I’d like to write more, but have to run.
Bloomburg: Treasury Fixing Home-Finance Juggles Bailout, Economy
elfman on October 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM
You ain’t see nuthin’ yet. Wait until Obama decides to act unilaterally to declare that all the foreclosed houses owned by Fannie and Freddie are going to be rented out and managed by a new federal agency.
We will see Barack “Won’t Wait for Nobody” Obama announce that once and for all he will issues executive orders that will:
1. end housing discrimination by putting all Section 8 renters into a big lottery for assignment to the newly enlarged pool of suburban houses
2. end all the issues with sub-par educational results by integrating every school district in the country
3. provide grants to union members assigned to do property rehabs on the foreclosed houses (union jobs are job 1)
Holder will say the constitution doesn’t say Obama can’t, so he can. Obama will re-introduce FDR’s second bill of rights just before the election.
He’s tired of waiting for an old, antiquated, racist system to provide justice for all – he will make it happen by executive fiat. All hail our enlightened leader.
(You are aware that the federal government is already the largest landlord in the country – right?)
in_awe on October 25, 2011 at 2:24 PM
On of our local anchors, in reporting on this, commented that the last one like this didn’t do anything and this plan was likely going to have the same results. When you lose the local cheerleaders….
LL
Lady Logician on October 25, 2011 at 3:58 PM
Hey Mrs. Space and I are potential beneficiaries but we still wouldn’t vote for Obama. We’d look into this HARP but are petrified at the paperwork involved. Not just the filling out the forms but also the kind of information the application will extract from us, and the gratuitous contact with the gummint agents involved. Yes, they may already have most of the info but thinking about having your name pop up and drawing the attention of this band of orcs can give you the willies. That’s a real deterrent to perhaps saving a few shekels on interest. Plus we’re straight, non-minority, married, gainfully-employed (for now), food-stamp non-recipients. Not only would it likely increase our chances of getting rejected (and the Feds still get your info) but it would probably get us on some DoJ enemies list or t’other. So on balance maybe we’ll wait and see if the program exists when someone else is in control of the Executive Branch Agencies of Tyranny. Perhaps when someone’s in there who’s willing to dissolve a coupla-three of them it would be a better bet.
curved space on October 25, 2011 at 6:50 PM