President Bush threatens housing-aid veto

[Gunny]

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush threatened Wednesday to veto Democrats’ broad housing rescue package, saying it won’t help struggling homeowners.

“We are committed to a good housing bill that will help folks stay in their house, as opposed to a housing bill that will reward speculators and lenders,” Bush said at the White House after meeting with House Republican leaders.

The measure, aimed at preventing foreclosures, would have the government step in to insure up to $300 billion in new mortgages for struggling homeowners. A House vote could come later Wednesday.

Bush’s comments clouded the prospects for a bipartisan housing deal this year.

The bill by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., would relax standards at the Federal Housing Administration so it could back more affordable, fixed-rate loans for borrowers currently too financially strapped to qualify.

Despite growing GOP support for the plan, especially among Republicans from areas hardest hit by the housing crisis, it could fall victim to an election-year fight over which party is doing more to help homeowners in need.

The White House calls the plan a burdensome bailout that would open taxpayers to too much risk.

It has also threatened that Bush would veto a separate bill to send $15 billion to states to buy and fix up foreclosed properties. Officials say that measure rewards lenders and investors who own the property, and could act as an incentive for them to foreclose rather than find ways to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes.

The opposition comes despite Democrats’ attempts to attract Republican support for their housing package by including a grab-bag of measures Bush has called for.

more ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24503502/

 

[jillian]

Just goes to show... the dems need a veto proof majority to get anything done because bush is determined to make sure they can't do anything now.

 

[Gunny]

Just goes to show... the dems need a veto proof majority to get anything done because bush is determined to make sure they can't do anything now.

So you are saying the government should bail out people who have made bad business decisions?

Tell me, is there anyone you hold accountable for their actions besides Republicans?

Allow ME: not so's anyone would notice.

 

[jillian]

So you are saying the government should bail out people who have made bad business decisions?

Tell me, is there anyone you hold accountable for their actions besides Republicans?

Allow ME: not so's anyone would notice.

Cute... disingenuous... but really cute.

I guess it's only okay to bail out corporations who make bad business decisions... you know, like airlines; banks; bear sterns...

just so you don't do anything for actual "people".

Is there anyone you hold accountable for ITS actions, or is it only Democrats?

Now allow ME: not so's anyone would notice.

 

[Paulie]

Cute... disingenuous... but really cute.

I guess it's only okay to bail out corporations who make bad business decisions... you know, like airlines; banks; bear sterns...

just so you don't do anything for actual "people".

Is there anyone you hold accountable for ITS actions, or is it only Democrats?

Now allow ME: not so's anyone would notice.

I would imagine Gunny doesn't approve of bailing out corps, either. I'm at a loss for understanding why taxpayers should be responsible for bailing ANYONE out. All that ultimately does is create incentive to take bad risks.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Yes, it encourages people to make bad decisions in the future. Moral hazard applies to people, not just big banks. In addition, people who were doing the honest thing and saving up for a downpayment to buy a house once the bubble popped...well, this screws them. House prices need to revert back to the long-term average, and any bailout prevents that.

Let the people who borrowed stupidly pay for the consequences. Likewise, let the banks who lent stupidly pay for the consequences.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes, it encourages people to make bad decisions in the future. Moral hazard applies to people, not just big banks. In addition, people who were doing the honest thing and saving up for a downpayment to buy a house once the bubble popped...well, this screws them. House prices need to revert back to the long-term average, and any bailout prevents that.

Let the people who borrowed stupidly pay for the consequences. Likewise, let the banks who lent stupidly pay for the consequences.

I don't know that I disagree with you, but home foreclosures (and bank failures) do have negative spillover effects that affect more than the people who made poor decisions. That should be taken into account as well. No reason to cut off the nose to spite the face.

 

[midcan5]

Slippery slope arguments while interesting hardly explain the risks some people take when they are given easy credit. And easy credit comes from lenders wanting to do the capitalist thing, make money. There should be some simple way of helping each other without it becoming just a bone of contention between parties. These people bought into the American dream, let's help them have that piece of it, and at the same time make this sort of bubble less possible. But I have to say after reading a book on bubbles, I'm not sure that will ever happen given human nature.

 

[Dogger]

So you are saying the government should bail out people who have made bad business decisions?

If it were that simple, I might agree with you. But many of the homeowners were misled or even defrauded about the terms of their mortgages. The truth gets buried in a stack of up to 100 pages or more of legal language, and the pressure of moving, closing and resettling.

The ripples hurt more than the careless as well. Even if you read and understand your mortgage papers, your home value can drop by thousands of dollars if foreclosures occur in your neighborhood. That ripple causes further ripples as well.

On a scale of Moral Hazard, I would rank those who acted deliberately as worse than those who were misled. Government policy created a system where people could profit while passing the risk on to others, and the lending industry jumped in like pigs in a trough. Applying strict Darwinian principles here will hurt millions of innocent people.

 

[Care4all]

If it were that simple, I might agree with you. But many of the homeowners were misled or even defrauded about the terms of their mortgages. The truth gets buried in a stack of up to 100 pages or more of legal language, and the pressure of moving, closing and resettling.

The ripples hurt more than the careless as well. Even if you read and understand your mortgage papers, your home value can drop by thousands of dollars if foreclosures occur in your neighborhood. That ripple causes further ripples as well.

On a scale of Moral Hazard, I would rank those who acted deliberately as worse than those who were misled. Government policy created a system where people could profit while passing the risk on to others, and the lending industry jumped in like pigs in a trough. Applying strict Darwinian principles here will hurt millions of innocent people.

Well said!

 

[Alpha1]

Cute... disingenuous... but really cute.

I guess it's only okay to bail out corporations who make bad business decisions... you know, like airlines; banks; bear sterns...

just so you don't do anything for actual "people".

Is there anyone you hold accountable for ITS actions, or is it only Democrats?

Now allow ME: not so's anyone would notice.

Why don't you just answer the question instead of having a tantrum...
Corporations enable those that work for them, to EAT, unlike lawyers that are more like parasites....you realize, if it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers...lol

 

[AllieBaba]

Thank God. I was afraid the government would "bail out" the idiotic homeowners who are bailing on their loans before I could grab one at a reasonable price.

 

[Larkinn]

Why don't you just answer the question instead of having a tantrum...
Corporations enable those that work for them, to EAT, unlike lawyers that are more like parasites....you realize, if it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers...lol

K...when someone rapes and kills your mother, you can try and prosecute them. Good luck with that.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Corporations enable those that work for them, to EAT

Those that work for corporations allow them to exist.

 

[AllieBaba]

K...when someone rapes and kills your mother, you can try and prosecute them. Good luck with that.

whoops, he could probably do a better job than some of the "lawyers" on this site...

 

[Larkinn]

whoops, he could probably do a better job than some of the "lawyers" on this site...

Haha, no. Pro se litigants generally lose. Badly. In a criminal case where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt there is no way he would get anywhere.

 

[Larkinn]

Why don't you just answer the question instead of having a tantrum...
Corporations enable those that work for them, to EAT, unlike lawyers that are more like parasites....you realize, if it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers...lol

By the way...lawyers allow corporations to exist. Without people trained in corporate law any large corporation wouldn't be able to function. Without corporate law, you would be paying $5k a month for your telephone.

 

[doeton]

"you realize, if it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers."

interesting the fart monster is really an anarchist.

never would figured that one.

 

[Dogger]

you realize, if it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers...lol

Without lawyers to protect civil liberties, governments would be oppressive and authoritarian.

When Shakespeare wrote, "First, let's kill all the lawyers", he put those words in the mouth of a villain, Dick the Butcher, who wanted to overthrow the government and abolish legal process and individual rights.

 

[AllieBaba]

Or we can pare down the law so that ordinary people can understand it...

I know it's a pipe dream, but it's a nice one.

My sister's a lawyer, I know there are good, ethical, smart ones out there.

But there are more egotistical, ignorant, arrogant, and lazy ones....