Let's print more money and bring more instability to
the financial markets. If it worked in Zimbabwe, then
why can't it work here?
Posted on 02/18/2009 9:47:56 AM PST by Zakeet
President Obama, calling the housing meltdown a "crisis unlike we've ever known," rolled out a $75 billion plan Wednesday that his administration hopes will keep as many as 9 million families in their homes.
The announcement in Phoenix comes a day after he signed a $787 billion economic rescue package that combines spending and tax cuts aimed at saving and creating millions of jobs.
The foreclosure prevention plan is more ambitious than initially expected -- and more expensive. It aims to aid borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are currently worth, and borrowers who are on the verge of foreclosure.
Obama said the plan would complement his administration's other efforts to pull the nation out of recession.
[Snip]
Part of the program would instruct Fannie and Freddie to automatically approve refinancing at current rates. That change is expected to give 4-5 million people an immediate reduction in their mortgage payments, according to a senior administration official.
Another component would provide government incentives to modify at-risk mortgages to drive down payments. Lenders would be asked to reduce monthly payments to 38 percent of the borrower's income, and then the government would split the cost of reducing that to 31 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Let's print more money and bring more instability to
the financial markets. If it worked in Zimbabwe, then
why can't it work here?
What makes Obama (or any of his Cabinet) an expert in fixing the “housing crises?”
Or is Big Brother going to pay all the fees associated with that as well? Appraisals, title searches, surveys, etc?
sw
1) Back in the good old days, I think banks wouldn't give mortgages in the first place if the payment would be more than 32% of income.
2) I'm assuming these sub-prime mortgages are all fixed rate, otherwise, the reduction in payments to a fixed percentage of income doesn't seem to make sense.
3) If I lose my job and have no income, does that mean my mortgage payments are 38% of zero?
Obama Announces $75 Billion "Everyone should be able to own a home" Mistake (Worse than expected)
So they get on average $8,333 and I get nothing other than to pay FOR the $8,333.....
Well, this certainly makes me feel better about living in a modest little house where I can afford the mortgage.
I wonder if those who get my tax money in order to stay in their big, fine new houses will send me thank you cards.
The latest phase of the Obama reparations plan ...
I posted this on my locale page, and thought it would be good to repost here.
The latest from the Barry Sotero road show has pushed me to action. I must do something; as I can’t take it anymore. The idea of the government subsidizing (even more) home mortgages of people who can’t do basic math, and helping the people who gave them loans is too much to take. It is time to start using the tools of the beast against itself. Let me float an idea to more knowledgeable FReepers and see where this goes.
The government has become discriminatory (or will if Barry gets the $50B he wants) against people who have paid their mortgages on time; penalizing them by making those, as taxpayers, pay not only their own mortgages, but other’s as well. Through this discrimination, it has denied these taxpayers certain fundamental rights; the right to own property (their hard earned money), the right for liberty (freedom to buy what they wish with their money), the right to pursue happiness (loss of security due to the financial burden imposed).
I propose the idea of a class action law suit against the US government, on behalf of non-delinquent mortgage holders for equal treatment under the law. If the US government is going to subsidize some mortgage holders, then they must subsidize all mortgage holders. Conversely, it must not subsidize any mortgage holders.
I am not naïve enough to think that this has a snowball’s chance of succeeding. In fact, I am pretty sure it would die an in glorious death at the hands of the bureaucrats. The point is to get the notion out there, and to get as many homeowners (read responsible taxpayers) upset about it as possible. Even those that are for the welfare state can find something good about it, as it appeals to their “I want pie” mentality; everybody gets something. The point is to foment discontent at the grassroots level, in order to affect change before, or by, 2010 and beyond.
Not being a litigious person (I like most lawyers even less than I like most doctors), I don’t know if this is even actionable. If it were, I wouldn’t even begin to know how to go about it. If there are any legal eagle FReepers out there that could weigh in, it would be appreciated.
Yep. As I understand it, MUCH worse than feared. What are these people thinking? Amazing how the ‘Emergency’ is so effectively used to usurp power from the fearful masses.
I suppose the part where they allow automatic refinancing at current interest rates might be a good one. It obviously could give people a lower rate than what is called for given their risk factors, but if they were going to go bankrupt otherwise, it’s probably better to get some money than none at all.
I don’t even see how you would work a plan that forced lenders to reduce payments to a percentage of income. So unless that is a voluntary plan whereby if the lenders reduce to 38%, THEN the government provides 7% of that so the lenders can be guaranteed some form of payment, that might be workable.
But what I’m guessing they want to do is to reduce the amount OWED to the lender so that the payment drops to 38%. And that I do NOT want. I don’t want ANY PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY who borrowed money to buy a house to now get that money “given back” to them in the form of debt relief, and have them keep their house.
Because that would reward the stupid, the greedy, the ignorant, and those who borrowed money and spent it all on things, at the expense of the prudent people who only borrowed what they could afford, and didn’t take money out of their houses to buy big-screen TV sets.
But I’m sure that is what Obama wants. It’s the “perfect” liberal plan. The only people who benefit are those who are poor and bought “rich people’s” houses. The rich don’t benefit because they won’t qualify since they can still afford their houses.
0 just lost the real homeowner class.
So for 9 million homes one would need $2.25 trillion dollars. Can China and Saudi Arabia loan us that much. Might be as Clinton says we will make the Muslims happy and the only way to do that is to institute Sharia Law.
That is a very clever way to spread the wealth!:
If I dash down to my friendly banker and ask for a refi. He will probably bend over backwards to fulfil my desire.
Why? Because it gets him off the hook and transfers the risk to Fannie and Freddie (The US Goverment) and then directly to You as a taxpayer
Got Ya
You're right, that's exactly what it is. Words mean things, and we ought to use them with precision when the alternative obfuscates the truth.
There was some sort of restructuring move late last year and I cannot recall if it was voluntarily entered in to by the banks, whatever.
The last news I heard about THAT restructuring was that more than 50% of the people who took it were in trouble again.
enough for a gubermint Trebant in every garage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.