Conservatives have a chance to prove we are not completely ideological partisans.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Umm, how does not supporting something that sounds like Government is forcing banks or "The Privet Sector" to do something partisan?

I don't know the details but it sounds like bullshit to my so far. How about Obama just says I will not bail you out again when you fail as they are counting on... The banks don’t need to work with people because they know if to many foreclose and the bank can’t deal with the losses Obama will hand them billions while the bank still gets the houses to resell… It’s easy money for the banks.

Not sure what you mean by partisan.

And this program is voluntary

 

[Avorysuds]

Umm, how does not supporting something that sounds like Government is forcing banks or "The Privet Sector" to do something partisan?

I don't know the details but it sounds like bullshit to my so far. How about Obama just says I will not bail you out again when you fail as they are counting on... The banks don’t need to work with people because they know if to many foreclose and the bank can’t deal with the losses Obama will hand them billions while the bank still gets the houses to resell… It’s easy money for the banks.

Not sure what you mean by partisan.

And this program is voluntary

Well, like I said I don't have the details... Sorry I was headed to bed, I'm posting in my sleep.


nights~

 

[Seawytch]

For example the $5.00/month debit fee as a result of Dodd/Frank?

Which increases their profits 13% more than before D/F.

This week, we see banks tacking on extra fees -- which, contrary to what they argue, would lead them to 13% more in profits than they were making before the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act went into effect.​

 

[thereisnospoon]

Its an interesting idea...give banks incentives to get people to refinance, therefore people have more money for bills and spending.

And anyone who thinks we have or ever will have a free market is a moron.

Well join the club.
You're a socialist progressive who wants a system where government owns all wealth in the hope that some of what someone else earned will land in your lap.
That is greed to nth power.
Fortunately you are in the extreme minority. Besides, when you and people like you try to come and get it from people like me, you'll not have a very long time to try and spend it.
I will tell you why this proposal doesn't work. It creates an artificial environment.
And it is limited in it's scope. Just saw a report on CBS Evening News that while this idea has merit, it doesn't go far enough. It leaves about 7 million homeowners who are under water but current, in the cold.
I am thinking these particular folks are not likely democrat voters.
When Obama does something ,it is in the name of politics first.
Will Obama's latest mortgage refinance plan help you? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Private loans left out of Obama's mortgage plan - CBS News Video

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well... I would support if banks offered this as a form of relief in hard times... they will still make their money on the loan.. more-so than reselling after a foreclosure...

BUT... I would not support this being govt funded... or banks being forced to make such an offer... govt has no business doing such a thing

They forced us to bail them out, so I figure this is fair.

Newsflash there Stormy....There is no such thing as "fair". Except in baseball and golf.
In life....Nothing is fair. It's not supposed to be.
We have right and wrong. Just and unjust. Pick one.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Honestly I dont think they have all the ideas completely nailed down yet. Maybe floating a balloon to see how far it will rise. I like what I see so far.

Although I could be somewhat biased as I work in the housing industry but I see more than dollar signs.

Precisely. This is a political trial balloon.
Obama wants to see how much campaign mileage he can get out of this.
See, Obama is campaigning under the guise of running the country. So from say 6 months ago ,everything Obama has said and done is part of his re-election campaign. Not governing.
With this proposal, he's got people turning their heads and saying...."wait. What was that?. Oh, that sounds like it may work"...
Do not be fooled. This proposal is no more a policy issue than cheez-its are proper snack food at a debutante ball.
This is all about votes for Obama and the other democrats up for re-election.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Honestly I dont think they have all the ideas completely nailed down yet. Maybe floating a balloon to see how far it will rise. I like what I see so far.

Although I could be somewhat biased as I work in the housing industry but I see more than dollar signs.

Precisely. This is a political trial balloon.
Obama wants to see how much campaign mileage he can get out of this.
See, Obama is campaigning under the guise of running the country. So from say 6 months ago ,everything Obama has said and done is part of his re-election campaign. Not governing.
With this proposal, he's got people turning their heads and saying...."wait. What was that?. Oh, that sounds like it may work"...
Do not be fooled. This proposal is no more a policy issue than cheez-its are proper snack food at a debutante ball.
This is all about votes for Obama and the other democrats up for re-election.

He won't get my vote so its a moot point for me. I want to see the housing market stable. If this is viable and it doesn't cost taxpayers money I'm all for it. I don't see why anyone wouldn't be. What are the risks? Someone helped goes under? Wouldn't matter because Freddie and Fannie are already on the hook with the homes in question. And with lower payments the likelihood of losing ones home drops dramatically. My house isn't in question so this isn't about me wanting lower payments. I see the upside for those in question and the trickle down effect in the rest of the economy.

Again where is the downside? I don't give a rats ass about how it makes Obama appear if it can actually help our fucked up economy and housing market.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with everyone? Screw what you think of Obama, tell me where this fails.....

 

[MiddleClass]

Republicans would criticize any plan Obama came up with, even if it helped God

 

[Flopper]

Honestly I dont think they have all the ideas completely nailed down yet. Maybe floating a balloon to see how far it will rise. I like what I see so far.

Although I could be somewhat biased as I work in the housing industry but I see more than dollar signs.

Precisely. This is a political trial balloon.
Obama wants to see how much campaign mileage he can get out of this.
See, Obama is campaigning under the guise of running the country. So from say 6 months ago ,everything Obama has said and done is part of his re-election campaign. Not governing.
With this proposal, he's got people turning their heads and saying...."wait. What was that?. Oh, that sounds like it may work"...
Do not be fooled. This proposal is no more a policy issue than cheez-its are proper snack food at a debutante ball.
This is all about votes for Obama and the other democrats up for re-election.

He won't get my vote so its a moot point for me. I want to see the housing market stable. If this is viable and it doesn't cost taxpayers money I'm all for it. I don't see why anyone wouldn't be. What are the risks? Someone helped goes under? Wouldn't matter because Freddie and Fannie are already on the hook with the homes in question. And with lower payments the likelihood of losing ones home drops dramatically. My house isn't in question so this isn't about me wanting lower payments. I see the upside for those in question and the trickle down effect in the rest of the economy.

Again where is the downside? I don't give a rats ass about how it makes Obama appear if it can actually help our fucked up economy and housing market.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with everyone? Screw what you think of Obama, tell me where this fails.....

Yes, this is a great idea. Unfortunately it's available to less than 10% of the mortgages that are underwater. Maybe this will start the ball rolling with the non-Fannie/Freddie mortgages.

 

[Wiseacre]

My first problem with this is in principle. This is basically assistance to one group of people, which ought not to be done. Whatver the parameters are, somebody is going to qualify and somebody isn't. Say your home has to be underwater by 125% but yours is only 120%, is that fair? I am generally opposed to programs that benefit one group rather than everybody.

The second problem is the cost, somebody is going to take a hit. Who? The banks? You all know what happens then, whatever the costs are in terms of lost revenue gets passed on to customers or to taxpayers in terms of tax writeoffs. There's no free lunch, never has been and never will be.

Thirdly, is it worth it? This looks like pure political bullshit by Obama, to make him look like he's doing something. It's not like this has any chance of fixing the housing crisis, as it is now not that many homeowners will be affected. Consider this, from AEI blog:


snippet:
—The program only applies to those mortgages that are held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—probably 800,000 mortgages, according to their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. This means that the total saving for these homeowners would be $2.4 million annually.

BFD

—If the interest on these mortgages is reduced, the losses will be taken in part by Fannie and Freddie, meaning that the taxpayers will pick them up.

I thought so.

—If the losses are taken by the holders of securities guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, the losses will be taken by the investors in these securities, and this new government intervention will mean that it will be harder to sell Fannie and Freddie securities to investors in the future.

Uhuh.

—Finally, the vast majority of the holders of these Fannie and Freddie securities are banks and S&Ls, which are already weak because they suffered vast losses on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities they held in the past. Reducing their revenues further at this point will of course reduce the funds they have to lend to businesses, thus keeping unemployment high.

Uhuh.

The Enterprise Blog

 

[Ravi]

My first problem with this is in principle. This is basically assistance to one group of people, which ought not to be done. Whatver the parameters are, somebody is going to qualify and somebody isn't. Say your home has to be underwater by 125% but yours is only 120%, is that fair? I am generally opposed to programs that benefit one group rather than everybody.

The second problem is the cost, somebody is going to take a hit. Who? The banks? You all know what happens then, whatever the costs are in terms of lost revenue gets passed on to customers or to taxpayers in terms of tax writeoffs. There's no free lunch, never has been and never will be.

Thirdly, is it worth it? This looks like pure political bullshit by Obama, to make him look like he's doing something. It's not like this has any chance of fixing the housing crisis, as it is now not that many homeowners will be affected. Consider this, from AEI blog:


snippet:
—The program only applies to those mortgages that are held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—probably 800,000 mortgages, according to their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. This means that the total saving for these homeowners would be $2.4 million annually.

BFD

—If the interest on these mortgages is reduced, the losses will be taken in part by Fannie and Freddie, meaning that the taxpayers will pick them up.

I thought so.

—If the losses are taken by the holders of securities guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, the losses will be taken by the investors in these securities, and this new government intervention will mean that it will be harder to sell Fannie and Freddie securities to investors in the future.

Uhuh.

—Finally, the vast majority of the holders of these Fannie and Freddie securities are banks and S&Ls, which are already weak because they suffered vast losses on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities they held in the past. Reducing their revenues further at this point will of course reduce the funds they have to lend to businesses, thus keeping unemployment high.

Uhuh.

The Enterprise Blog

There is some disinformation in your post. 1st, your home doesn't have to be underwater by 125%. The cap used to be that you couldn't refinance if your home was more than 125% underwater. That cap is being lifted.

Second, if you refinance, the bank you refinance pays off your original loan. This happens every day with mortgages. There is no loss to taxpayers whatsoever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lower %, yes. Debt forgiveness, no.

 

[Wiseacre]

My first problem with this is in principle. This is basically assistance to one group of people, which ought not to be done. Whatver the parameters are, somebody is going to qualify and somebody isn't. Say your home has to be underwater by 125% but yours is only 120%, is that fair? I am generally opposed to programs that benefit one group rather than everybody.

The second problem is the cost, somebody is going to take a hit. Who? The banks? You all know what happens then, whatever the costs are in terms of lost revenue gets passed on to customers or to taxpayers in terms of tax writeoffs. There's no free lunch, never has been and never will be.

Thirdly, is it worth it? This looks like pure political bullshit by Obama, to make him look like he's doing something. It's not like this has any chance of fixing the housing crisis, as it is now not that many homeowners will be affected. Consider this, from AEI blog:


snippet:
—The program only applies to those mortgages that are held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—probably 800,000 mortgages, according to their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. This means that the total saving for these homeowners would be $2.4 million annually.

BFD

—If the interest on these mortgages is reduced, the losses will be taken in part by Fannie and Freddie, meaning that the taxpayers will pick them up.

I thought so.

—If the losses are taken by the holders of securities guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, the losses will be taken by the investors in these securities, and this new government intervention will mean that it will be harder to sell Fannie and Freddie securities to investors in the future.

Uhuh.

—Finally, the vast majority of the holders of these Fannie and Freddie securities are banks and S&Ls, which are already weak because they suffered vast losses on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities they held in the past. Reducing their revenues further at this point will of course reduce the funds they have to lend to businesses, thus keeping unemployment high.

Uhuh.

The Enterprise Blog

There is some disinformation in your post. 1st, your home doesn't have to be underwater by 125%. The cap used to be that you couldn't refinance if your home was more than 125% underwater. That cap is being lifted.

Second, if you refinance, the bank you refinance pays off your original loan. This happens every day with mortgages. There is no loss to taxpayers whatsoever.

Not sure if the details have all been finalized yet, I was going off of what I read in the WSJ and the AEI Blog. It says that Fannie and Freddie are ont he hook for any of these refi mortgages that go south and also that F&F will eat the difference in lost interest money to the banks. Don't know for sure if that's true, how sure are you that it isn't? And why?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Responsible, historical conservatives have nothing to apologize for.

Libertarians and hard right reactionary wacks give conservatives a very bad name in the great majority of the population: rightfully so.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Republicans would criticize any plan Obama came up with, even if it helped God

I criticize any proposal that increases the size of government or adds to government employment.
Whether this does or not is yet to be determined.
The problem with this proposal is it does not go far enough to help the people who are doing the right thing by adhering to their payment obligations
My suspicion is this proposal is limited to those who are likely democrat voters.
I state this based on a pattern that has been evident with regard to the way Obama administers his office. That is, everything Obama does is for purely political reasons.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obamas proposal to help homeowners that are current on their payments yet upside down may have a chance to refinance to the lower rate of 4%. Thus lowering their payments and creating more equity in the long run as well as putting extra cash in their pockets. Assessments are dissalowed and the program is not mandatory. This direct type of stimulus would actually have an impact in the economy as a whole and not just a targeted sector.

I for one think this is a good idea that "could" help our strugling housing market. Kudos

Banks are resistant because it would mean possible loss of expected revenue of 2% or more.

I see no way this voluntary program could be considered the usual govt intrusion. It is an attempt to help not only good honest homeowners but also spark a struggling market. Not only that but this could help many other facets of the housing industry like remodeling or just simply put extra money into a weak economy in other areas through the savings it will provide the consumer.

Now help to disprove the lockstep thought of the left on here that we all care about Obamas failure more than helping the people, by either thanking this post or responding in kind.

PS. Im well aware that many of you will consider this an attempt to buy favor of the population before an election. But regardless of motive the results could be positive as long as Freddie and Fanny are closely watched.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/b...k-mortgage-refinancing-for-millions.html?_r=1

Nope. More government meddling in the 'free market'.

The only way to fix the economy is for justice to be served. People who bought to much should lose. Banks that lent to much should lose. Investors to greedy should lose.

Over time home prices will fall, and you will see the market come back. Either by investors looking for rental property or in new home buyers.

Either way one thing is for certian. People are not buying because the prices are to high.

Thats an odd assessment.

Most homes that have lost value and ended up upside down have done so despite any factors of the home owners or banks involved in each circumstance. MANY home owners are upside down and are completely responsible home owners. I know a few of them in this very situation myself. When homes in your neighborhood get forclosed on and sit empty for so long it affects you negatively no matter how responsible you are.

Those looking for a place to buy are not buying because they fear they cannot sell their existing home. Investors are not buying because they believe the market has not reached bottom.
My parents are trying to sell their Florida home. They have had a couple of ridiculous low ball offers. I also have a friend who lives in the suburbs of New York City. She has had her condo for sale for over a year. She got her one and only offer last week. It was for less then she paid for the place 17 years ago. And it's lower than the lowest sale last year. Of course she rejected the offer.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What bank is going to allow people who are underwater on their mortgages, but current with all payments, to refinance? What's in it for them?

Precisely the reason why I referred to the proposal as a purely political move.
Banks have to be offered something in return to take the risk of refinancing homes that are worth less then the payoff on the mortgage. Note the term "payoff".
Which is a far lower amount than the total of the payments if the loan was paid off to term.

 

[Mad Scientist]

This deal requires homeowners to not be behind on payments, that means the homeowner can already afford his/her home.

No refi is necessary or warranted.

 

[thereisnospoon]

what bank is going to allow people who are underwater on their mortgages, but current with all payments, to refinance? What's in it for them?

pr?

Be careful. Banks were essentially told to lend money to normally unqualified applicants.
The federal government created fannie/freddie to back the loans in case they failed.
This proposal also mentions "incentives".
That we must examine with extreme caution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

what bank is going to allow people who are underwater on their mortgages, but current with all payments, to refinance? What's in it for them?

pr?

Be careful. Banks were essentially told to lend money to normally unqualified applicants.
The federal government created fannie/freddie to back the loans in case they failed.
This proposal also mentions "incentives".
That we must examine with extreme caution.

I agree, and both Dems and Pubs were at fault for those loans.