In Obama's Feb 18 speech on the housing crisis, he said:
"The plan I'm announcing focuses on rescuing families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly" - how will it be determined who has acted responsibly?
"loans for families stuck in sub-prime mortgages they can't afford as a result of skyrocketing interest rates" - interest rates are the lowest they've been in my lifetime, certainly lower than I can remember.
"But I also want to be very clear about what this plan will not do: It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans. It will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell. It will not help dishonest lenders who acted irresponsibility, distorting the facts and dismissing the fine print at the expense of buyers who didn't know better. And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford. In short, this plan will not save every home." - where do I start with this paragraph? Now someone will determine the motives of borrowers when they agreed to their mortgages?
"My plan changes that by removing this restriction on Fannie and Freddie so that they can refinance mortgages they already own or guarantee. This will allow millions of families stuck with loans at a higher rate to refinance. [at a lower rate]" - wait a minute! I thought the interest rates were skyrocketing?!?! At least they were 30 seconds ago when you said it.
"And the estimated cost to taxpayers would be roughly zero; while Fannie and Freddie would receive less money in payments, this would be balanced out by a reduction in defaults and foreclosures." - I am really not anxious to see how many billions "close to zero" this really turns out to be.
"I also want to point out that millions of other households could benefit from historically low interest rates if they refinance" - so which is it? Skyrocketing or historically low?
"Sub-prime loans -- loans with high rates and complex terms that often conceal their costs -- make up only 12 percent of all mortgages" - this is flat out wrong. It is "sub-prime" refers to the borrowers. They are not prime, because of credit profile, amount they will put down, etc. The sub-prime mortgage has higher interest rates because sub-prime borrowers represent a bigger risk.
"Borrowers will be required to make payments on time in return for this opportunity to reduce those payments." - if these sub-prime borrowers were making their payments on time, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. What's new about this plan?
"In addition, as part of the recovery plan I signed into law yesterday, we are going to award $2 billion in competitive grants to communities that are bringing together stakeholders and testing new and innovative ways to prevent foreclosures. Communities have shown a lot of initiative, taking responsibility for this crisis when many others have not. Supporting these neighborhood efforts is exactly what we should be doing." - I wonder how much of this will go to ACORN?
"Our housing crisis was born of eroding home values, but also of the erosion of our common values" - hogwash! The home values eroded because of the mortgages that were not paid.
"It was brought about by big banks that traded in risky mortgages in return for profits that were literally too good to be true" - Big banks that were bullied by the feds and community organizers to offer mortgages to the sub-prime borrowers in the first place.
"by lenders who knowingly took advantage of homebuyers" - let's see if I understand this: banks loaned money to sub-prime borrowers who they knew wouldn't pay off the debts because there was some business 'advantage' in this? The idea is ludicrous.
"by leaders in our nation's capital who failed to act amidst a deepening crisis." - the very same leaders who are still in charge of the financial services committee (Barney Frank), the senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee (Chris Dodd) and the team that put together this bill in secret, closed-door committees (Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid). You mean THOSE LEADERS in the nation's capital?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
A lot to ingest.
I agree the housing plan has some VERY massive holes in it. However, your lack of willingness to acknowledge ANY responsibility by ANYONE in your party (last paragraph) baffles me. If the GOP had all the right answers how come they didn't create a Utopian society in the years they had total control of government. Maybe the reason your party has lost so many recent elections is because of its failure to honestly evaluate its performance. Or maybe my eyes have deceived me and the emperor wasn't naked after all.
Sean has done an excellent evaluation of the current situation. Sure, the republicans screwed it up when they had the chance to clean it up. However, what has taken place in congress within the past two years is what I want to hear the rac'meister admit to. And yes, I do believe your eyes have deceived you. But I still love you like a brother...
RAC - I am sorely disappointed in the job republicans did when they had control of congress, senate and white house. The GOP was not acting like the GOP as far as I'm concerned.
They spent too much, led too little and started acting like democrats. Bush lost favor with the GOP base (primarily) because of massive spending (prescription drugs) and his push for amnesty for illegal immigrants. These are both democratic causes, not failed republican causes. This is what bipartisanship got him.
A large part of the house and senate went right along with this. The only reason we don't have 20 millions "new citizens" today is because of the load and consistent protest of the people (including yours truly).
When republicans run on conservative platforms, they win. When they try to run as "liberal light" they loose (see McCain).
On the other hand, for the democrats to stand up and blame *everything* on Bush is just pure malicious deception. They have acknowledged no responsibility for anything. They get away with it because a very large part of their voting base is simply ignorant of how the government works.
Hahahaha.
The problem I have with the housing bill is that it rewards the people who actually caused the housing crisis - the buyer. It's simple free market economics. If people had just refused to pay such over inflated prices then the market would have adjusted accordingly. But no, greed got the best of them. With dollars in their eyes people took on way more debt than they could afford and ended up driving housing prices beyond what responsible folks were willing to spend. Ergo, a housing bubble. As far as I am concerned they should now have to pay the price.
P.S. So Sean, am I to understand that, in theory, the GOP cannot be held accountable because they were in fact acting as de facto Democrats? Nice! Kind of like when the preacher gets caught blowing a teenage male hooker then blames it on the Devil.
BTW, McCain was your party's guy. You had plenty of chances to put forth a "true Republican" in Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. Makes me wonder how well informed most of the GOP base is. (Gee, I seem to recall making this same observation about a year ago on this very blog)
RAC, republicans are to be held responsible for their actions. I give them no passes. They have been held accountable - that's why they are no longer in power. I guess we'd rather have republicans who hold true to the conservative ideals than any old RINO who comes along. (alas, we seem to have two big rinos in Maine and PA).
I was actually shocked that McCain won the nomination. I think a large part of this is the NH vote. The publisher of the Manchester Leader came out with a glowing endorsement of McCain and he came away with the state. I can't imagine why his paper supported McCain, but here we are.
All of this is water under the bridge though. We can argue forever about how we got here. The question now is - where do we go from here. I can see that you and others aren't happy with where this is going. I'm just trying to fathom how we can change this administrations course.
So I see where Oregon Silver Nat'l Bank folded its tent last night. 19th bank to go belly up so far this year.
Funny how these banks always go under on a Friday night.
Next up:
Citi
Bank Of America
BB&T
These truly are interesting times in which we live.
Like I said, "a lot to ingest"!
Ric is it "ingest" or "digest".I wish I stayed in school. And yea these are interesting times we live in but I don't think I would exactly describe them that way. Hell we lived in interesting times when we were growing up on the "Rock".Remember Viet Nam,Watergate,Landing on the moon etc? If you think about it what our country is going through now is nothing.Here's some real trivia.Who remembers the Spiro Agnew watch? It ran backwards./Hahahaha. And yes Doug, he was a republican. Peace.
Mat. Ingest: "to take in". Digest: "to assimilate mentally". Heck they both mean about the same thing!
Yes Mat, we do live in interesting times. I just feel for my daughter and any future children or grandchildren that I may sme day have.
Well, the market has "reacted", and dropped "like a rock" down 257@ 355pm, almost 3.5%!!!!
There's your market confidence!!
Post a Comment