Obama's Mortgage Bailout Plan

[Shady]

Republicans had no interest is solving the problem.

Republicans were the only ones offering any solutions to the problem. Democrats wouldn't even acknowledge a problem existed!

They withdrew it even when they had a clear path to passing legislation

A clear path to passing legislation would be 60 votes in the Senate. Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority. It was withdrawn 2 years after it was proposed because Democrats refused any new regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Remember, they refused to even accept that a problem existed! Keep spinning.

September 2003

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis"

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing"-- Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee

So, the question remains. Do you agree with Barney Frank, and the Democrats in the House and the Senate? That Republicans were exaggerating the problems with the mortgage industry? And do you agree with Barney Frank and the Democrats in the House and Senate, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not facing any kind of financial crisis?

[jdobbin]

Republicans were the only ones offering any solutions to the problem. Democrats wouldn't even acknowledge a problem existed!

Wrong.

A clear path to passing legislation would be 60 votes in the Senate. Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority. It was withdrawn 2 years after it was proposed because Democrats refused any new regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Remember, they refused to even accept that a problem existed! Keep spinning.

They had the 60 votes as articles on the subject have indicated. They withdrew the bill themselves.

So, the question remains. Do you agree with Barney Frank, and the Democrats in the House and the Senate? That Republicans were exaggerating the problems with the mortgage industry? And do you agree with Barney Frank and the Democrats in the House and Senate, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not facing any kind of financial crisis?

Do you agree that Bush's deregulation led to the sub-prime crisis? Greenspan certainly thinks so now.

[BubberMiley]

September 2003

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis"

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing"-- Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee

I'm glad you finally put this obscure quote from six years ago in your signature because it might now save you from quoting it over and over again in the hopes that it somehow means anything beyond its ancient context.

But I miss the lie about voting for McCain, which I remember well as a catchphrase the NDP used in response to Sterling Lyon's failure of a government in the 1970s. Though then it was clever, not just because it was orginal, but it also rhymed.

Don't blame me. I voted NDP.

Edited February 22, 2009 by BubberMiley

[Shady]

Wrong.

They had the 60 votes as articles on the subject have indicated. They withdrew the bill themselves.

Do you agree that Bush's deregulation led to the sub-prime crisis? Greenspan certainly thinks so now.

Please Sir, answer the question. I asked you a question. It's a very simple question.

Do you agree with Barney Frank and the Democrats, that Republicans were exaggerating the problems with the mortgage industry?

Look at the Dow Jones, look at the weekly jobless claims, look at the unemployment rate, and look at all the homes in foreclosure. Now once again Sir. Let all of us in the forum know whether or not you think Republicans exaggerated the problems with the mortgage industry? Please.

[punked]

Please Sir, answer the question. I asked you a question. It's a very simple question.

Do you agree with Barney Frank and the Democrats, that Republicans were exaggerating the problems with the mortgage industry?

Look at the Dow Jones, look at the weekly jobless claims, look at the unemployment rate, and look at all the homes in foreclosure. Now once again Sir. Let all of us in the forum know whether or not you think Republicans exaggerated the problems with the mortgage industry? Please.

What were the Republicans suggesting be done in 2003 again Shady?

[Topaz]

IF you listen to Con radio, all you would hear is the host said how the mortgage bail out is going to fail and the Dems don't know what they are doing or why should taxpayers pay for some one's mortgage if that the mortgage holder couldn't afford the house in the first place. Obama has said over and over again that people who can't prove they can handle the mortgage will not get to own a home. You would think with the US on edge of economic destruction, that the radio hosts would try to be more postive and give the people some hope for the future. Doesn't Rush and Hannity realize that if the country fails, that they too may lose all those millions they have ? Of course, I'm sure alot of them have it off shore, maybe the Caribean or in some Swiss bank.

[BubberMiley]

Please Sir, answer the question. I asked you a question. It's a very simple question.

Do you agree that in 2003 there was a clear financial crisis that needed immediate attention? If so, why would the Republicans, who controlled congress and the executive branch, not have done something about it then?

[punked]

Do you agree that in 2003 there was a clear financial crisis that needed immediate attention? If so, why would the Republicans, who controlled congress and the executive branch, not have done something about it then?

I can answer it was why they didn't do anything in 2005 too. Most republicans were against doing something too. They deregulated in 2001 when Bush wanted his legacy to be a home for every American and the world looked great. Right up into 2007. Frank in fact advocated for regulation to be tightened, he however did not want to give up the regulatory power to the Department of Treasury becuase he saw that as the first step in privatization. Funny how in the end it looks like not doing so was the first step in nationalizing banks.

[jdobbin]

Please Sir, answer the question. I asked you a question. It's a very simple question.

And I asked you a question. Did Bush and Republican objectives of further deregulation not cause the sub-prime crisis?

Do you agree with Barney Frank and the Democrats, that Republicans were exaggerating the problems with the mortgage industry?

Yes. I do. I believe they were taking aim at affordable housing just so they could continue to overlook derivatives and mortgage packaging by the banks. That is what Greenspan believes caused the crash.

Look at the Dow Jones, look at the weekly jobless claims, look at the unemployment rate, and look at all the homes in foreclosure. Now once again Sir. Let all of us in the forum know whether or not you think Republicans exaggerated the problems with the mortgage industry? Please.

The Republicans withdrew legislation in 2005. Not because they were blocked. They did it because they didn't believe there was a crisis. They had the votes as has been pointed out many times here.

Even if the legislation had passed, it still didn't address the problem of how deregulation was going to cause a crash. Greenspan said, if not housing, then somewhere else.

[WIP]

Great...please stay in Canada.

As usual, most of your stupid, inane comments have nothing to do with the points made, and that last one is a no brainer -- who wouldn't stay in Canada now, since it's your debt-ridden country that's dragging us down! In case you didn't notice, our banks aren't insolvent, and these scam mortgages that Countrywide and other mortgage brokers had suckered people in to, wouldn't even have been legal up here to begin with. It was just one part of a fraudulent scheme of deregulated banking and unregulated hedge funds that gave an illusion of prosperity during the Bush years. And like all bubbles, it eventually has to burst and reveal its true worth............which seems to be next to worthless right now.

[WIP]

As BC notes, I think the posters to these threads are asking whether they should subsidize, as you put it, people without alot on the ball making dumb decisions. It is one thing to help confused people but it is quite another to let them drive the taxi.

It's worth noting that the foreclosure crisis may have started with people suckered into subprime loans that never should have been legal in the first place, but it has moved far beyond that, with the sudden spike in unemployment. Many people that are losing their jobs are also in danger of falling behind on their mortgage payments and losing their homes.

This article in USA Today, says that one out of nine U.S. homes is sitting vacant, although it doesn't indicate how many of them would be caused by foreclosure evictions as opposed to a glut of unsold new units. Nevertheless, a vacancy rate that high will cause a further decline of property values in those neighbourhoods, since vacant homes are prone to arson, vandalism, or being taken over by squatters. That's something all of those self-centered fools should be thinking about in that NY Times article.

Of course it's Bush's fault too.

But Obama is the guy in the White House now and he's had several months to decide what to do.

Several months? What month are we in now? Because he wasn't inaugurated until Jan. 20th.

This current mortgage proposal is a non-starter. Ordinary, honest Americans are not going to pay the mortgages of deadbeats with refinanced plasma screens and Escalades down the street. It doesn't take an MBA in Finance to understand this.

Could you explain to me why "honest Americans" will gladly extend a 700 billion dollar line of credit to buy worthless crap from banks and insurance companies rather than use the money to offer fair mortgage terms to people that were victimized by these institutions?

When Obama changes his mortgage bail out plan, he'll then fall victim to the "he's making this up as he goes along" criticsm.

Can anyone be taken seriously who claims that they know how to fix the system and revive the economy? I've been reading statements from sources as varied as Paul Volcker and George Soros, who say that the collapse of the World financial system is unprecedended.......that even the Great Depression doesn't provide any clues in stopping the slide and reviving commerce and industrial production.

I've been hoping stimulus plans here and in the U.S. will work since the alternative is just to keep letting market forces cannibalize what's left of wealth. But I can't say I'm optimistic about the U.S. situation, since the stimulus seems to be dwarfed by cutbacks in spending at state and local levels of government, that have to cut spending, raise taxes and layoff employees...........sure hope it works though!

Karl Rove has already started.

What good are the opinions of a man who should be on trial now?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's worth noting that the foreclosure crisis may have started with people suckered into subprime loans that never should have been legal in the first place, but it has moved far beyond that, with the sudden spike in unemployment. Many people that are losing their jobs are also in danger of falling behind on their mortgage payments and losing their homes.

A neither new or remarkable circumstance. Why is this time around so special?

Nevertheless, a vacancy rate that high will cause a further decline of property values in those neighbourhoods, since vacant homes are prone to arson, vandalism, or being taken over by squatters. That's something all of those self-centered fools should be thinking about in that NY Times article.

You still don't get it.....the people who did not drink the Flavor-Aid know false equity when they see it. Arson, vandalism, and squatting is nothing new in Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis, or Los Angeles. I don't know why those other fools want to continue the very false Land of Home Ownership Oz. When did renting get such a bad name?

Several months? What month are we in now? Because he wasn't inaugurated until Jan. 20th.

Yet he boasted that he was working on it since November.

Could you explain to me why "honest Americans" will gladly extend a 700 billion dollar line of credit to buy worthless crap from banks and insurance companies rather than use the money to offer fair mortgage terms to people that were victimized by these institutions?

Because most "honest" Americans are not bankers or hedge fund moguls....but many do own homes without any such bailout grief.

Can anyone be taken seriously who claims that they know how to fix the system and revive the economy? I've been reading statements from sources as varied as Paul Volcker and George Soros, who say that the collapse of the World financial system is unprecedended.......that even the Great Depression doesn't provide any clues in stopping the slide and reviving commerce and industrial production.

Congratulations....now you also understand that nobody has "figured it out".

I've been hoping stimulus plans here and in the U.S. will work since the alternative is just to keep letting market forces cannibalize what's left of wealth. But I can't say I'm optimistic about the U.S. situation, since the stimulus seems to be dwarfed by cutbacks in spending at state and local levels of government, that have to cut spending, raise taxes and layoff employees...........sure hope it works though!

So you want more deficit spending to chase more debt backed wealth....great.

[Oleg Bach]

Defict spending is the act of taking out a loan from the citizenry...a loan that will never be paid back in a million years. The government with out the consent of the voters is about to spend money the public has not made yet...great idea...all it will do is prop up the ones that should be allowed to fall - rich is not for ever nor is poor - but evidently the rich believe they are entitled to heaven on earth for eternity - surprise surprise - no matter how much you take from the average Joe it can not be absorbed - The body is bloated and fat - let them live on their fat for a while. Let them become lean and mean in time and actually contribute before we send them more tribute.

[WIP]

A neither new or remarkable circumstance. Why is this time around so special?

More foreclosures, more vacant homes = less new home construction; and we are being told that there is no economic recovery without a housing recovery.

You still don't get it.....the people who did not drink the Flavor-Aid know false equity when they see it. Arson, vandalism, and squatting is nothing new in Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis, or Los Angeles. I don't know why those other fools want to continue the very false Land of Home Ownership Oz. When did renting get such a bad name?

Well, from what we've been told, home ownership is the pathway to building equity towards retirement, paying for children's education etc. for the average person. But I am aware of the latest propaganda coming from the rightwing tak radio, specifically Limbaugh, that America has too many home owners who can't afford and can't look after their own homes....and presumably he and his Republican allies want more of them in that renting underclass.

What I don't understand is if this is true, why is it that Canada is not in this situation yet even though our rates of home ownership are both at 68%.

Yet he boasted that he was working on it since November.

Whatever he was working on, he didn't have any actual executive authority until a month ago!

Because most "honest" Americans are not bankers or hedge fund moguls....but many do own homes without any such bailout grief.

Whatever that's supposed to mean, it doesn't answer my question of why Republican logic dictates that it is right to bail out the banks, but do nothing for the people who signed on to mortgage contracts that are fraudulent. Many leftwing conspiracy theorists have insisted for years that Republican strategists want to eliminate the middle class, and have just a small wealthy class and a vast underclass.........their actions lately certainly show no interest in saving the middle class.

Congratulations....now you also understand that nobody has "figured it out".

And that is certainly not a comforting thought. The financial meltdown may be some similarities with the Great Depression, but today there is so much debt at all levels of government, consumers, business, it's hard to see how an economic recovery can start to kick in.

So you want more deficit spending to chase more debt backed wealth....great.

Hey! I don't know how this is going to work....especially with all the debts and unfunded liabilities that never get factored in, but what other options are there besides doing nothing?

[bush_cheney2004]

More foreclosures, more vacant homes = less new home construction; and we are being told that there is no economic recovery without a housing recovery.

That's just a continuation of the same madness. The party is over, despite HGTV. The "economy" managed to grow robustly before any housing bubble.

Well, from what we've been told, home ownership is the pathway to building equity towards retirement, paying for children's education etc. for the average person.

Home ownership is only one method to "build equity", and even then it has to be real, not inflated nonsense for speculators. Our home is still worth far more than we paid.

But I am aware of the latest propaganda coming from the rightwing tak radio, specifically Limbaugh, that America has too many home owners who can't afford and can't look after their own homes....and presumably he and his Republican allies want more of them in that renting underclass.

Correct....some people simply cannot afford home ownership...for a host of reasons. And others rent while hardly being members of an "underclass".

What I don't understand is if this is true, why is it that Canada is not in this situation yet even though our rates of home ownership are both at 68%.

Canada has no renting "underclass"? Amazing!

Whatever he was working on, he didn't have any actual executive authority until a month ago!

Then he should have kept his bragging mouth shut.

Whatever that's supposed to mean, it doesn't answer my question of why Republican logic dictates that it is right to bail out the banks, but do nothing for the people who signed on to mortgage contracts that are fraudulent.

Because the federal government insures bank deposits.....not fraudulent mortgages.

Many leftwing conspiracy theorists have insisted for years that Republican strategists want to eliminate the middle class, and have just a small wealthy class and a vast underclass.........their actions lately certainly show no interest in saving the middle class.

Deadbeats with NINJA loans were never part of the so called middle class.

And that is certainly not a comforting thought. The financial meltdown may be some similarities with the Great Depression, but today there is so much debt at all levels of government, consumers, business, it's hard to see how an economic recovery can start to kick in.

There you go again...it is not going to "recover" if you mean a return to what it was. That's the whole point of this exercise....the party is over.

Hey! I don't know how this is going to work....especially with all the debts and unfunded liabilities that never get factored in, but what other options are there besides doing nothing?

Why do you care....you're in Canada with the best banking system in the universe ? Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

[Oleg Bach]

Say every last family in America had a home and immigration ceased. Imagine if there was no need for more domestic dwellings...what would the excuse be then - this would have happened dispite the housing loans..You can remove that bit out of the scenario and the bubble would have burst anyway..just would have taken longer. The more we are diverted into the area of mortgage default the further we are from finding the real cause. After good observation it is clear that logic dictates that our system became so complex, so unmanageable and so damned corrupt that the system broke. It's like an engine - to many people tinkering with it at the same time - some skilled - some inempt and a whole lot of engine maintainence guys that were classy versions of the crooked garage guy down the street - It broke...maybe adding oil to a dry and burned out motor will not restart it....? You have to start all over again and not just restructure the engine - You need a new motor and tranny...It's over - get rid of the old car.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It broke...maybe adding oil to a dry and burned out motor will not restart it....? You have to start all over again and not just restructure the engine - You need a new motor and tranny...It's over - get rid of the old car.

Correct....the jig is up. Anybody who was counting fraudulant eggs will have to survive just like the rest of us schmucks. Cash is king, because the idiot financial alchemists couldn't get to it.

[Oleg Bach]

Correct....the jig is up. Anybody who was counting fraudulant eggs will have to survive just like the rest of us schmucks. Cash is king, because the idiot financial alchemists couldn't get to it.

This means a total re-structuring of the status quo ----- to drag the little vampires into the light screaming is not going to be pleasant.

[bush_cheney2004]

This means a total re-structuring of the status quo ----- to drag the little vampires into the light screaming is not going to be pleasant.

It will be fun to watch....maybe my cat will stop getting so many credit card applications in the mail.

I couldn't believe my eyes/ears on Saturday when Ditech.com (aka GMAC) advertised a new loan product without negative amortization....as if that were a product improvement.

[Oleg Bach]

It will be fun to watch....maybe my cat will stop getting so many credit card applications in the mail.

I couldn't believe my eyes/ears on Saturday when Ditech.com (aka GMAC) advertised a new loan product without negative amortization....as if that were a product improvement.

It's stunnig that people here the word "product" come out of the mouth of a bank, actually believe they are getting hard material goods - a product! The product is an empty box. AIR - no one trusts them anymore...snake oil salesman....The other scam the banks are running is the sending out of mouth piece "experts" who advise people not to borrow from family or lend to family - the devide and conquer thing ------ they still want you to come to them and get it....pay them and prop them up and get "service" and product...that is but paper dust...at least gold dust you could measure and see....I like my product nice and shinny. I heard those commericals also ----- along with that newly merged radio satillite company that still insists on selling you one of their units to put in a car that does not exist...talk about habitualist.

[WIP]

That's just a continuation of the same madness. The party is over, despite HGTV. The "economy" managed to grow robustly before any housing bubble.

Home ownership is only one method to "build equity", and even then it has to be real, not inflated nonsense for speculators. Our home is still worth far more than we paid.

Correct....some people simply cannot afford home ownership...for a host of reasons. And others rent while hardly being members of an "underclass".

Canada has no renting "underclass"? Amazing!

Then he should have kept his bragging mouth shut.

Because the federal government insures bank deposits.....not fraudulent mortgages.

Deadbeats with NINJA loans were never part of the so called middle class.

There you go again...it is not going to "recover" if you mean a return to what it was. That's the whole point of this exercise....the party is over.

Since you don't consider a shrinking middle class to be a problem, there's not much to talk about. There's no point to arguing these issues with someone who wants a return to feudalism.

Why do you care....you're in Canada with the best banking system in the universe ? Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

The first reason should be obvious -- an American recession becomes a Canadian recession just because of how intertwined our economy is with the U.S. economy. In my area, most of our industrial production goes state-side, so when U.S. orders dry up, plants start cutting shifts, laying off employees, and some may close down completely if things don't turn around in a year or so.

And, I've mentioned previously that I have more family living in the U.S. than in Canada, so I hear first hand about how bad things are getting in the states where they live.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since you don't consider a shrinking middle class to be a problem, there's not much to talk about. There's no point to arguing these issues with someone who wants a return to feudalism.

The American middle class was never about the excesses on display now. You are projecting a level of wealth that is upper middle class and higher...always a smaller demographic.

The first reason should be obvious -- an American recession becomes a Canadian recession just because of how intertwined our economy is with the U.S. economy. In my area, most of our industrial production goes state-side, so when U.S. orders dry up, plants start cutting shifts, laying off employees, and some may close down completely if things don't turn around in a year or so.

Then why doesn't a Canadian recession become an American recession?

And, I've mentioned previously that I have more family living in the U.S. than in Canada, so I hear first hand about how bad things are getting in the states where they live.

Let me check...nope...I have no relatives living in Canada...the last one moved to the USA. I guess I will never know how bad things get in Canada.

Edited February 24, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Your Canadian Canary reporting from the coal mine..getting hard to breath --- it's getting dark - I will surive because I am a tough old bird - but the miners are dropping like flys. Gives me some satisfaction that all the people who did the right thing - got their degrees - worked all their lives everyday - maybe in the end after all their work - they might just end up the same as me - the good time Charley that did as he pleased all his life and ends up with one thing ----and there is but one thing I own - a grave in the family plot..at least I know where I am going....ha ha - now who is laughing.

[emma]

Obama is always talking about “change” so why does this “great nation” need so much change? The government has been buying out many private sectors primarily to dominate the economy and to centralize the planning for the purpose of generating wealth just to uplift the economy. As you can see, The President of United States is moving toward Socialism. That is what he is always been talking about "change". To recreate an economic system..

[August1991]

I am talking about detailed regulations that would have to be implemented.

...

And, once again, just because Canada has deregulated does not make it equivalent to any other jurisdictions regulations. That kind of "reasoning", without going into details of the similarities and differences with other jurisdictions, is just plain garbage.

The US has some very good and effective regulations. They also have some very poor ones and lack some others.

Guess what? So does Canada. BFD.

msj, I think the key point (IMV) is that regulations don't stop speculative bubbles. (I'll admit that government can prevent panics but in doing so, government may exacerbate bubbles.)

When some people are wrongly terrified that they will be poor, government (society) can step in and reassure them. But when some people are (wrongly) convinced that they will be rich, I don't think government (anyone) can convince them otherwise.

Bubbles (false euphoria, irrational exuberance) are a fact of life.

Edited February 28, 2009 by August1991