Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007

[Paulie]

http://www.larouchepac.com/2007act.html

Doesn't appear to be getting much traction at the moment, especially in the mainstream, but sounds like a damn good idea to me. According to a source of mine that is involved in the LaRouche committee, it's being aggressively pursued in washington by their lobby. There have been a handful of congressmembers that have agreed with it off the record at this point, but haven't officially endorsed it.

I'm sure some here will criticize it just for being an idea of LaRouche, or being too "liberal", but the ideas behind it shouldn't be thought of in partisan ways. It's a way to keep homeowners from being forced out in the street, and from all the LITTLE banks that keep our economy alive, from going bankrupt and falling from existence, and still getting to collect on their loans.

Seems like a win-win to me.

Thoughts?

 

[Paulie]

No comments on this from anyone?

 

[Annie]

No comments on this from anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Why am I not surprised that a Ron Paul aficionado would be hawking a LaRouche idea?

...Allegations of anti-Semitism

A number of organizations, publications, and individuals have criticized LaRouche for both overt and "coded" anti-Semitism, including the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Anti-Defamation League, Senator Daniel Moynihan, Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe, and writers Mike Royko, Dennis King, Chip Berlet, and Robert L. Bartley. However, LaRouche condemns anti-Semitism in his published writings. He writes, "Religious and racial hatred, such as anti-Semitism, or hatred against Islam, or, hatred of Christians, is, on record of known history, the most evil expression of criminality to be seen on the planet today."[53]

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League quotes LaRouche as saying he believes the "Zionist lobby", "Christian Zionists", and "Jewish gangsters" have "sought to control U.S. policy toward Israel," and believes that the September 11 attacks "could not have happened without the connivance of something inside, very high level, inside the United States military command.".[54]

Dennis King asserts that in order to hide anti-Semitism, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew." According to King, LaRouche thinks that to be a real Jew, "one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[55] King also claims to have found "euphemisms,"[56] "semantic tricks,"[57] and examples of "symbolic scapegoating"[58] in LaRouche's writings that he claims confirm the allegations of conventional anti-Semitism.[59] For example, King claims that LaRouche's published attacks on Henry Kissinger include a disguised form of anti-Semitism. King further says these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a neofascist whose world view secretly centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." King points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David -- and certain headlines (in more recent LaRouche publications) such as "How the Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England" -- to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often coded attacks on international Jewry.[60] [61] King discusses in detail how certain photos of barred spiral galaxies, sometimes identified as Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika," and King engages in a lengthy iscussion on neonazi mystification of the image of the swastika and how it relates to the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest."[62]

Author Daniel Pipes, however, does not think Dennis King is correct when, as Pipes claims, King asserts that all "references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews." Pipes argues that sometimes these are just references the British tracing back to conspiracy theories based on secret societies.[63] Pipes, however, also recognizes that LaRouche is an antisemite who "places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[64]

Robert L. Bartley, writing in The Wall Street Journal, criticizes the title of a LaRouche-sponsored pamphlet ("Children of Satan") attacking the neoconservatives. He quotes the pamphlet's assertion that a "cabal of [Leo] Strauss disciples, along with an equally small circle of allied neo-conservative and Likudnik fellow-travelers" have plotted a "not-so-silent coup." Noting that "Mr. LaRouche has chosen an Aryan-nation phrase for Jews (descendants of Cain, who was the result of Satan seducing Eve, in this perfervid theology)," Bartley terms the "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism." He also suggests that the use of the terms "Straussian" and "Neo-conservative" may be coded anti-Semitism when used by LaRouche and other writers.[65]

Chip Berlet suggests that the commentary on Iraq by LaRouche-affiliated publications, which is incorporated into some Arab and Muslim commentaries, represents conspiracism and anti-Semitism, especially through the use of what Berlet describes as "stereotyped descriptions of the neoconservative network and their power."[66] To prevent the catastrophe that will result from following neoconservative policies, LaRouche advocates preparation for total war with Great Britain."[67] Berlet also contributed to a segment in the Encyclopedia Judaica which states that LaRouche is a "notorious antisemite," and among those who use "conspiracy allegations moved into more mainstream circles through bridging mechanisms" in a way that often masks the "original overtly anti-Jewish claims by using coded rhetoric" and thus is a "major source of such masked antisemitic theories globally."[68]

Former LaRouche follower Linda Ray, writing in In These Times, has also commented on euphemistic LaRouchian methods of communicating. She recalls reading in New Solidarity about a subhuman oligarchical species centered in London: "Although I knew it did not make scientific sense, I presumed that it was a deep intellectual metaphor that was over my head." She says that years later, when she was shown the Star of David picture with Queen Elizabeth at the top, "I quickly replied...'It is just a graphics art symbol'--which I naively thought for years. But as soon as I said it out loud I realized that I sounded ridiculous. It was as if I was waking from a nightmare."[69]...

 

[Paulie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Why am I not surprised that a Ron Paul aficionado would be hawking a LaRouche idea?

Just as i suspected. Should have figured YOU'D attack the messenger, and make absolutely ZERO comment on the message at all.

I don't even support LaRouche for fucks sake. But I support this idea. LaRouche ALSO doesn't support Paul, in fact, at the Philly RP rally, the LaRouche people had their own little table set up on 6th street off the Mall, to hand out their OWN literature and turn people away from Ron's ideas. LaRouche people are loyal to only one person's ideas...LAROUCHE.

My girlfriend's brother has been a member of his youth movement for years, and he and I rarely see eye to eye on anything politically. This is the first thing I've agreed with LaRouche about.

All that LaRouche has ever said about Ron is that he's "a maverick".

Why are you so obsessed with this anti-semitism shit?

 

[Annie]

Just as i suspected. Should have figured YOU'D attack the messenger, and make absolutely ZERO comment on the message at all.

I don't even support LaRouche for fucks sake. But I support this idea. LaRouche ALSO doesn't support Paul, in fact, at the Philly RP rally, the LaRouche people had their own little table set up on 6th street off the Mall, to hand out their OWN literature and turn people away from Ron's ideas. LaRouche people are loyal to only one person's ideas...LAROUCHE.

My girlfriend's brother has been a member of his youth movement for years, and he and I rarely see eye to eye on anything politically. This is the first thing I've agreed with LaRouche about.

All that LaRouche has ever said about Ron is that he's "a maverick".

Why are you so obsessed with this anti-semitism shit?

Perhaps because it scares me that I see a rise in anti-semitism and Ron Paul backers are behind such?

 

[Paulie]

Perhaps because it scares me that I see a rise in anti-semitism and Ron Paul backers are behind such?

A rise in anti-semitism, that's rich.

Ron Paul backers are just Ron Paul backers. That stormfront embraces Ron Paul because they have some twisted view of how his administration might help alleviate the problem of "all the jews", does not define Ron Paul's support, or his campaign.

I just went to stormfront for the first time yesterday and read through some of their threads...You really see those retards as a threat? They're mostly a bunch of narrow minded idiots that, judging by the things they say and their reasoning and logic behind it, have no real clue what the problems of the world are and how to solve them. Hate will NEVER solve a problem, it will only inflate it.

When stormfront becomes some huge voting demographic, then maybe it's worth crying about. For now, it's basically just a group of angry assholes that would probably never have the balls to do and say the things they advocate, off the internet, outside of a comfortable majority of their fellow members.

You really need to stop trying so desperately to link Ron Paul to this shit, it's been put to rest already. No matter what you think about them, they still have a right to choose a candidate. They seem rather lost on exactly WHY they even support him to begin with, outside of the fact that Ron wouldn't bow down to Israel and make policy based on it's well being FIRST, the way most of our politicians in this country do. If that's the only reason they like Ron, that's pretty stupid. But that's not Ron's fault.

Now...

Do you have anything to comment on about the legislation I posted? If not, please shut up.

 

[Annie]

A rise in anti-semitism, that's rich.

Ron Paul backers are just Ron Paul backers. That stormfront embraces Ron Paul because they have some twisted view of how his administration might help alleviate the problem of "all the jews", does not define Ron Paul's support, or his campaign.

I just went to stormfront for the first time yesterday and read through some of their threads...You really see those retards as a threat? They're mostly a bunch of narrow minded idiots that, judging by the things they say and their reasoning and logic behind it, have no real clue what the problems of the world are and how to solve them. Hate will NEVER solve a problem, it will only inflate it.

When stormfront becomes some huge voting demographic, then maybe it's worth crying about. For now, it's basically just a group of angry assholes that would probably never have the balls to do and say the things they advocate, off the internet, outside of a comfortable majority of their fellow members.

Stop trying to pander to your audience, you have them. You're problem or rather Ron Paul's problem is to disavow Stormfront and it's ilk. Neither of you have done so.

You really need to stop trying so desperately to link Ron Paul to this shit, it's been put to rest already. No matter what you think about them, they still have a right to choose a candidate. They seem rather lost on exactly WHY they even support him to begin with, outside of the fact that Ron wouldn't bow down to Israel and make policy based on their well being FIRST, the way most of our politicians in this country do. If that's the only reason they like Ron, that's pretty stupid. But that's not Ron's fault.

Now...

Do you have anything to comment on about the legislation I posted? If not, please shut up.

You lose on so many levels. Your argument is we 'need to wait for the Stormfront to get enough influence' before we react? Hello? Gestapo? Stormtroopers?

Get the hell out of my country, that kicked you out of Europe 60+ years ago.

 

[Paulie]

Stop trying to pander to your audience, you have them. You're problem or rather Ron Paul's problem is to disavow Stormfront and it's ilk. Neither of you have done so.

You lose on so many levels. Your argument is we 'need to wait for the Stormfront to get enough influence' before we react? Hello? Gestapo? Stormtroopers?

Get the hell out of my country, that kicked you out of Europe 60+ years ago.

My argument was more that it would never happen, and to quit crying about it, but your comprehension skills suck obviously.

If you'd shut that fucking TV and computer off and go outside and see things with your own eyes, you'd realize it. There's a whole beautiful world out there, independent of TV land where you seem to dwell.

There's no threat of white-supremecy groups taking over America. You're a god damn looney toon kathianne.

ONCE AGAIN, are you going to comment on the legislation? Because I'm so fucking done arguing with you about this stupid ass racism bullshit.

 

[Annie]

My argument was more that it would never happen, and to quit crying about it, but your comprehension skills suck obviously.

If you'd shut that fucking TV and computer off and go outside and see things with your own eyes, you'd realize it. There's a whole beautiful world out there, independent of TV land where you seem to dwell.

There's no threat of white-supremecy groups taking over America. You're a god damn looney toon kathianne.

ONCE AGAIN, are you going to comment on the legislation? Because I'm so fucking done arguing with you about this stupid ass racism bullshit.

Right, we can take your word for it.

 

[Paulie]

Right, we can take your word for it.

Thanks for contributing absolutely NOTHING to this thread. I'm starting to think you just like to rile up the members that you don't agree with for your own pathetic enjoyment. Is your life that boring?

What's so god damn hard about commenting on the topic? Why do you insist on being so difficult? If you want to discuss the topic, i'll continue talking to you here in this thread. If you'd rather just give me one meaningless off-topic sentence and get the last pathetic word, then this conversation is done.

It's up to you.

 

[Annie]

Thanks for contributing absolutely NOTHING to this thread. I'm starting to think you just like to rile up the members that you don't agree with for your own pathetic enjoyment. Is your life that boring?

What's so god damn hard about commenting on the topic? Why do you insist on being so difficult? If you want to discuss the topic, i'll continue talking to you here in this thread. If you'd rather just give me one meaningless off-topic sentence and get the last pathetic word, then this conversation is done.

It's up to you.

I guess it would be things like this, after I responded to your questions, which you had no replies for-see above:

...Allegations of anti-Semitism

A number of organizations, publications, and individuals have criticized LaRouche for both overt and "coded" anti-Semitism, including the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Anti-Defamation League, Senator Daniel Moynihan, Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe, and writers Mike Royko, Dennis King, Chip Berlet, and Robert L. Bartley. However, LaRouche condemns anti-Semitism in his published writings. He writes, "Religious and racial hatred, such as anti-Semitism, or hatred against Islam, or, hatred of Christians, is, on record of known history, the most evil expression of criminality to be seen on the planet today."[53]

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League quotes LaRouche as saying he believes the "Zionist lobby", "Christian Zionists", and "Jewish gangsters" have "sought to control U.S. policy toward Israel," and believes that the September 11 attacks "could not have happened without the connivance of something inside, very high level, inside the United States military command.".[54]

Dennis King asserts that in order to hide anti-Semitism, LaRouche redefined the meaning of "Jew." According to King, LaRouche thinks that to be a real Jew, "one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community."[55] King also claims to have found "euphemisms,"[56] "semantic tricks,"[57] and examples of "symbolic scapegoating"[58] in LaRouche's writings that he claims confirm the allegations of conventional anti-Semitism.[59] For example, King claims that LaRouche's published attacks on Henry Kissinger include a disguised form of anti-Semitism. King further says these examples bolster his argument (which also references certain images used in LaRouche publications) that LaRouche is a neofascist whose world view secretly centers on anti-Semitism and includes a "dream of world conquest." King points to a 1978 illustration in New Solidarity of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David -- and certain headlines (in more recent LaRouche publications) such as "How the Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England" -- to bolster his argument that LaRouche's attacks on a "British" oligarchy are often coded attacks on international Jewry.[60] [61] King discusses in detail how certain photos of barred spiral galaxies, sometimes identified as Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika," and King engages in a lengthy iscussion on neonazi mystification of the image of the swastika and how it relates to the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest."[62]

Author Daniel Pipes, however, does not think Dennis King is correct when, as Pipes claims, King asserts that all "references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews." Pipes argues that sometimes these are just references the British tracing back to conspiracy theories based on secret societies.[63] Pipes, however, also recognizes that LaRouche is an antisemite who "places a British-Jewish alliance at the center of his conspiracism."[64]

Robert L. Bartley, writing in The Wall Street Journal, criticizes the title of a LaRouche-sponsored pamphlet ("Children of Satan") attacking the neoconservatives. He quotes the pamphlet's assertion that a "cabal of [Leo] Strauss disciples, along with an equally small circle of allied neo-conservative and Likudnik fellow-travelers" have plotted a "not-so-silent coup." Noting that "Mr. LaRouche has chosen an Aryan-nation phrase for Jews (descendants of Cain, who was the result of Satan seducing Eve, in this perfervid theology)," Bartley terms the "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism." He also suggests that the use of the terms "Straussian" and "Neo-conservative" may be coded anti-Semitism when used by LaRouche and other writers.[65]

Chip Berlet suggests that the commentary on Iraq by LaRouche-affiliated publications, which is incorporated into some Arab and Muslim commentaries, represents conspiracism and anti-Semitism, especially through the use of what Berlet describes as "stereotyped descriptions of the neoconservative network and their power."[66] To prevent the catastrophe that will result from following neoconservative policies, LaRouche advocates preparation for total war with Great Britain."[67] Berlet also contributed to a segment in the Encyclopedia Judaica which states that LaRouche is a "notorious antisemite," and among those who use "conspiracy allegations moved into more mainstream circles through bridging mechanisms" in a way that often masks the "original overtly anti-Jewish claims by using coded rhetoric" and thus is a "major source of such masked antisemitic theories globally."[68]

Former LaRouche follower Linda Ray, writing in In These Times, has also commented on euphemistic LaRouchian methods of communicating. She recalls reading in New Solidarity about a subhuman oligarchical species centered in London: "Although I knew it did not make scientific sense, I presumed that it was a deep intellectual metaphor that was over my head." She says that years later, when she was shown the Star of David picture with Queen Elizabeth at the top, "I quickly replied...'It is just a graphics art symbol'--which I naively thought for years. But as soon as I said it out loud I realized that I sounded ridiculous. It was as if I was waking from a nightmare."[69]...

 

[Paulie]

So basically your response to the topic is "LaRouche hates jews because wikipedia says so, Ron Paul hates jews because stormfront idiots like him, even though that doesn't even have anything to do with this thread, and i don't really like you paulitics, therefore i don't want to talk about this topic".

Got ya kath. Pretty weak, and pretty boring.

You can have the last word.

You'll make damn sure you get it, anyway.

 

[Annie]

So basically your response to the topic is "LaRouche hates jews because wikipedia says so, Ron Paul hates jews because stormfront idiots like him, even though that doesn't even have anything to do with this thread, and i don't really like you paulitics, therefore i don't want to talk about this topic".

Got ya kath. Pretty weak, and pretty boring.

You can have the last word.

You'll make damn sure you get it, anyway.

Actually, pretty telling, for those that read.

 

[Shogun]

It's sad when the accusation of antisemitism is all it takes. Indeed, thank god your priorities are in order! Troubling it is knowing that people like you would rather the US fall on a grenade for Israel than realize it's own detriment. hey, I hear that moving to Israel is a breaze if you can claim to be jewish...


So far, I've seen blogs and messageboards whisper some diabolical stormfront connection with RP. It's no wonder why swift boat veterans for truth had an audience.

 

[Paulie]

It's sad when the accusation of antisemitism is all it takes. Indeed, thank god your priorities are in order! Troubling it is knowing that people like you would rather the US fall on a grenade for Israel than realize it's own detriment. hey, I hear that moving to Israel is a breaze if you can claim to be jewish...


So far, I've seen blogs and messageboards whisper some diabolical stormfront connection with RP. It's no wonder why swift boat veterans for truth had an audience.

Shogun, if I may, what's your take on the legislation I posted about for this thread?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Say Katherine, if David Duke endorsed George Bush (I think he did actually, but I'm not certain), would you call Bush and his supporters Klansmen?

I remember when conservatives complained about this sort of "debating", seeing as how it's a tried and true tactic of many on the left, whenever someone talks of trimming back the welfare state.

 

[Annie]

Well Baron, looks questionable if your memory serves:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...35752C1A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

November 7, 1991
THE 1991 ELECTION: Louisiana; Bush Denounces Duke As Racist and Charlatan
By ROBERTO SURO,

In his strongest comments to date on the Louisiana governor's race, President Bush said today that State Representative David Duke was a charlatan unfit to hold public office because he has espoused racist and neo-Nazi beliefs.

The President's remarks came after a statement by Mr. Duke on Tuesday that equated the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany with affirmative action programs in the United States.

Speaking at a news conference in Washington, President Bush said: "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

Mr. Duke, who was openly associated with neo-Nazi groups in the 1970's and was a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan from 1975 to 1980, has proved a major embarrassment to the President and the national leadership of the Republican Party. Mr. Duke got nearly 500,000 votes to finish second in an open primary Oct. 19 and won the right to contest a runoff election Nov. 16. Dirt on Both Sides

Even though Mr. Duke did not seek the endorsement of the state Republican convention last summer and has been repudiated by state and national Republican organizations alike, he calls himself "the Republican candidate" in the governor's race because he is a registered Republican. ...

Can't find anything on the front page regarding GW II and David Duke, not saying you are definatively wrong.

Anyone can 'endorse' a candidate, it's what the candidate does if that is a endorsement that he/she thinks wrong. Stormfront and David Dukes, are not the type of endorsement anyone I would consider voting for should not denounce.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

As far as the proposal goes: I'm not exactly sure what all the details would entail, but my gut instinct tells me...it stinks.

Hint #1: The appeal to what FDR would have done.

Hint #2: This quote--

Further, this action would also write off all of the speculative debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities, derivatives and other forms of Ponzi Schemes that have brought the banking system to the point of bankruptcy.

Err, what does that mean exactly..."write off all the debt obligations"? I honestly don't know. It sounds like a corporate bailout of biblical proportions. Now I only have the tiniest inkling of understanding of this issue, hopefully Toro will chime in, but I believe if I've read correctly that the derivatives in question tower into the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Yes, hundreds of trillions. With a T.

I'm guessing that any sort of government patch would involve massive infusions of cash from the federal reserve, like we've never seen before.

Overall, the whole thing sounds like they want to socialize the mortgage lending industry, and/or let irresponsible people off the hook, while responsible people (savers) watch their savings go up in smoke due to inflation. Not to mention that such government intervention always has unintended side effects. I don't know exactly and precisely what those effects would be here, but something this massive would cause other problems, somehow/someway.

 

[Toro]

Err, what does that mean exactly..."write off all the debt obligations"? I honestly don't know. It sounds like a corporate bailout of biblical proportions. Now I only have the tiniest inkling of understanding of this issue, hopefully Toro will chime in, but I believe if I've read correctly that the derivatives in question tower into the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Yes, hundreds of trillions. With a T.

Most of the derivatives in the world - about 70% - are currency swaps, i.e. you swap currency payments with another entity. These are vanilla and benign.

What is says is

this action would also write off all of the speculative debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities

That is going to have to happen anyways, though not "all" speculative collateralized debt obligations are worth zero. But some are estimating that half a trillion dollars of mortgages will have to be written off.

People were borrowing to speculate on homes and have been caught. In many cases, the value of the home is or will not be worth the value of the mortgage. So those assets will have to be written down, a Countrywide Financial or a Washington Mutual may go under, and several dozen or perhaps a hundred banks will either be merged or declare bankruptcy. That has to happen to flush out the system, and though unfortunate, a necessary and ultimately beneficial aspect of capitalism. Otherwise, America would become like Japan, with its zombie banks, caught in a deflationary spiral and unable to grow again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As we speak, Countrywide, the country's largest mortgage company is already renegotiating loans with clients so as to avoid foreclosures. It costs more for a lender to foreclose than to reset terms of a loan. The idea that we need more government to rectify this problem is ridiculous when the free market is already addressing it.

i have a few problems with the proposed legislation.

1. Congress must establish a Federal agency to place the Federal and state chartered banks under protection, freezing all existing home mortgages for a period of how ever many months or years are required to adjust the values to fair prices, and restructure existing mortgages at appropriate interest rates. Further, this action would also write off all of the speculative debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities, derivatives and other forms of Ponzi Schemes that have brought the banking system to the point of bankruptcy.


The "for however many months or years" part scares me. You know as well as I do that the government will be meddling in the free market forever because this type of legislation never goes away. And what exactly is an "appropriate interest rate"? Perhaps a rate that has nothing to do with the free market but seems "fair" to the government

I don't know any economist who would call the accepted practice of selling securities backed by mortgages a ponzi scheme when historically those same securities have been on of the safest bets in the market.

2. During the transitional period, all foreclosures shall be frozen, allowing American families to retain their homes. Monthly payments, the equivalent of rental payments, shall be made to designated banks, which can use the funds as collateral for normal lending practices, thus recapitalizing the banking systems. These affordable monthly payments will be factored into new mortgages, reflecting the deflating of the housing bubble, and the establishment of appropriate property valuations, and reduced fixed mortgage interest rates. This shakeout will take several years to achieve. In the interim period no homeowner shall be evicted from his or her property, and the Federal and state chartered banks shall be protected, so they can resume their traditional functions, serving local communities, and facilitating credit for investment in productive industries, agriculture, infrastructure, etc.

"all foreclosures will be frozen'. Even the ones that have nothing to do with adjusting rates??? what about the people who just didn't pay?? there have always been foreclosures even before all this. And if lenders follow Countrywide's example and i think they will, there will be no need to recapitalize the banks because they will be collecting their payments.

Don't you find it funny that the legislation does not propose mandating that states suspend all property taxes so as to give the homeowners relief. Instead Governors will have to spend more to oversee this new arm of the government and guess what that means. That's right more taxes on the local AND state level on top of the new taxes that will be needed for the federal program.

This is a bad idea all around.

And what about the homeowners who were too dumb to figure out that if they can barely make a mortgage payment at the low end of an ARM that they probably won't be able to pay the bill once the rates adjust up?

I'll say that mortgage comapnies share some of the blame but there is plenty to go around but this legislation is not the way out.