It is important to help homeowners

[question everything]

Yes, I know. "We encourage irresponsible behavior," "we punish the ones who do pay on time.." etc.

But we, as Democrats and liberals who believe in shared vision and values and community, should be concerned about what a massive foreclosure can do to communities. And, no, it is not the "sprawl" or the Mcmasnions. Many are in inner cities.

Do we really want boarded up houses in an inner city that is trying to control gang and drug activities?

Here, in the Twin Cities, where snow cam early and in large quantities, and where homeowners are responsible to clear the sidewalks in front of their houses, this chore now belongs to the city with a limited resources.

No doubt, similar fallouts are in other parts of the country without snow.

Whenever we provide a program to the needy, some will take advantage of it even if they don't need it. One example, wealthy individuals who invest in farms and get farm subsidies.

So let's support - argh - Bush and Paulson and "money lenders" in their efforts to help struggling homeowners. As it is, it appears that very few of the ones who are going to lose their homes can even qualify for the program. But we, as a group that believes in helping our neighbors, not in "looking out for number one" should support this effort.

[Breeze54]

1. Typical * crappy program!!

"very few of the ones who are going to lose their homes can even qualify for the program"

It's to help those that CAN pay, not the rest of them and especially not the low income
or struggling due to unemployment, health concerns etc..

-----

Democrats Call Bush Mortgage Bailout Too Limited

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=84589&cat=Politics+News&more=%2Fpolitics%2F

December 7, 2007
Beth Murtagh -- Newsday

WASHINGTON --

Democrats quickly blasted President George W. Bush's mortgage-bailout plan yesterday as a narrow solution for a broader crisis and pushed their own ideas to fix the mortgage mess.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took Wall Street to task for its role, promoted her own solution -- a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures, a five-year rate freeze and possible legislation to let lenders restructure at-risk loans without investor consent.

Clinton yesterday faulted Bush's plan for allowing lenders to decide independently which homeowners could freeze interest rates, saying his plan would leave out most of the 1.5 million families facing a big jump in payments next year.

"Throughout the foreclosure crisis, President Bush has ignored the cries for help. Today he responded, but once again, it's too little, too late," Clinton said.

The Bush administration's plan applies to loans obtained between Jan. 1, 2005, and July 31, 2007, that reset between Jan. 1, 2008, and July 31, 2010. It would help homeowners making on-time mortgage payments who would not be able to afford the sharp increases when the adjustable rates rise.

John Edwards also publicized his pitch to deal with mounting foreclosure numbers. In contrast to Clinton, Edwards proposes an interest-rate freeze lasting seven years, regulation of all lenders and assuring at-risk homeowners individual assistance from lenders to prevent foreclosure.

Barack Obama gave muted praise to Bush's action, but said his plan "does not go far enough. ... Half-measures will not do."

Obama would create a fund to help homeowners refinance mortgages or sell their homes, and change bankruptcy law to allow homeowners to re-negotiate their loans.

more....

[jwirr]

2. The bail-out that *ss suggested will not help any of the ones who

have already lost their homes.

[Breeze54]

3. No kidding.

It also won't help the 1.5 million in danger of losing their homes either.

As usual, he shoots for the smallest margin.

[yellingman]

4. Debt extension is not enough, we need debt elimination!!

I don't see why any bank, or especially some rich foriegn "investor" should have a claim on a hardworking family's home. Thier home is their home, and that's all their is to it.

[Wcross]

8. Problem is most people can't afford to pay cash for a house.

The only way they can have a home is by going into debt.

[MadHound]

5. Well first of all, Bushboy's program isn't bailing out the homeowners

Sure, they get a temporary freeze on their interest, but all that does is allow more money to continue to flow from the pockets of the people into the pockets of corporations. It simply kicks this problem down the road a few years, and meanwhile these people are left with homes on their hands that are worth less than the mortgage note, thus they either take a huge hit when they sell, or they're stuck in them for at least a decade, if not longer.

In addition, the majority of these homeowners aren't poor, struggling inner city residents. They are greedy, over eager middle class suburbanites and exurbanites who let their greed get in the way of making good decisions, and frankly I think that they should pay the price for their greed and foolishness. As a homeowner, I'm already paying the price for what they've done in the form of increased property taxes(as housing values shot through the roof, my own has was revalued upwards and taxed accordingly. Those taxes sadly won't come down for years, if ever) and now that they've popped this bubble, my house value is worth less.

Sorry, but I don't believe in bailing out greedy, foolish corporations or greedy stupid people. Let them suffer and pay the price for their greed and stupidity, and learn their lesson. Next time maybe they'll think twice.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. I thoroughly agree

It's winter - and for those in the Great Lakes (I'm originally from Rochester NY so I 'get it' ) - it's still going to be snowing and ice storming in March.

What's the alternative? Homelessness.


I have never in my life known a cold, hungry day. I've never lived paycheck to paycheck. I'm fortunate. And I'm lucky. And yes - for the boot strappers . . . yes - I have worked hard. BUT . . .

We are talking about our OWN here. These are our fellow Americans. You know, my country has spent hand over fist funding a bullshit war and subsequent occupation. This occupation has included 'rebuilding' efforts. This isn't a case of if we help them keep their homes - it's going to be blown to bits tomorrow.

Part of my 'luck' has been the fact that my dad's family has owned a farm which has become an 'Agribusiness' since 1866. I benefit from that every year on January 15th and have for the past 4 years. If land which has never once been 'on loan' can receive subsidies -

We can help people who want to get to the place we are at. My grandfather, his father, and grandfather would all want it that way. They never got their forty acres and a mule - they took it. And they took it so they could give a hand down to help someone up.

We've got to help these people stand up.

[Breeze54]

7. Spoken like a true liberal!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

to DU! :hi:

[MadHound]

9. No, the alternative isn't homelessness

The alternative is that these people will have to rent for a number of years while they pay back the bank and build their credit back up. I doubt that any but a very small percentage will wind up being homeless. The vast majority of these people were decently well off middle class to begin with, thus they have resources to fall back on. It simply means that they won't have their comfy, overpriced house in the burbs anymore, and a few years of legal headaches.

I was homeless for a couple of years back when I was young, and it taught me some valuable lessons, when it comes to my own personal economics, be conservative, be smart,read the fine print and don't put yourself in a fiscal position where you are risking it all on the movement of an economy or interest number. The biggest one, which everybody should know, homeless or not, is that if it seems too good to be true, then it is probably not true. Sadly these people forgot some of those basic lessons, instead letting greed and avarice get the better of them in their blind rush for bigger and better.

I appreciate your sentiment and your compassion. You must forgive me if I withhold mine for those people who truly deserve it, and who didn't allow their stupidity and greed overwhelm their common sense.

[JustAnotherGen]

11. Thank you

I DO 100% understand your perspective. :-)

Do you know? I've never had a credit card debt? Never. Not once in my life. But I was taught how to budget by my parents. I do think part of a hand up SHOULD include budgeting and finance classes. Those of us who 'know' - can volunteer. I would if it means someone can get on their feet and learn the life skills you and I have. This really needs to be focused on the Diamond Jim Brady's who thought 100K a year entitled them to a 700K McMansion. These folks are my peers who lived beyond their means.


The lower income folks that this is affecting? I really truly believe they KNOW how to stretch a dollar. They just need someone to freeze that rate they bought into.


My other concern is - WHO is going to buy these homes? I'm not. No way Jose Bove. I've no intention of even living in America in a few years (significant other is a citizen of another country)so even though I could afford it . . . I don't want to set down roots in America.

Who can afford it?

[MadHound]

14. Living out in the country, and watching my nears urban neighbor creeping steadily closer

Frankly I hope nobody buys these over the next few years, or decades. I know that sounds selfish, but this housing bubble brought about an insane expansion in development to many areas, what with suburbs and exurbs and such. I've watched these developments move closer and closer to my rural retreat, and it pisses me off. I moved onto a farm in part to get away from the city, and I don't want to have to move again in my life. I have an organic, heirloom orchard, so I've truly put down roots here, and I don't want to see them overrun buy suburbia.

I've never had a CC either, never needed or wanted one. I agree with you about teaching finance and such, it used to be taught in the high schools and jr. highs, but with the advent of NCLB, all of that "extraneous" curriculum simply isn't being taught. But I still think that it is more of a case of greed simply overcoming native intelligence. My cousin got into house flipping in the St. Louis suburbs, and made good money for awhile. But he let his greed get the better of him, despite our warnings at the last family reunion, and now he's stuck with having to pay off three mortgages on houses whose value has gone down, in a glutted market. He's got a reset coming up in about a year, and hopes to sell at least two of the houses before then, but frankly it wouldn't be surprising if he gets burned badly. He'll survive, but it will hurt for a few years.

There are actually quite affordable places in this country, but most of them happen to be in places where a lot of people don't want to go because they think it is a cultural and intellectual wasteland. You know, flyover country. That's OK though, because once again if the secret gets out that there are intellectually and culturally sophisticated places out there with lower costs of living, way too many people would want to come here.

[Wcross]

10. You sound as if you need to go down to Nick Tahous!

Time for a garbage plate!!!!! Wash it down with a nice cold Genny cream ale!




http://images.google.com/url?q=&usg=AFQjCNGRo-y7a6X4OjblpxpinvAgBAxf1w

[JustAnotherGen]

12. OMG!!!!

I can't wait! I'lllllllllllllll be home . . .. For Tahoooooooooooooooooous - if only in my dreams.

Seriously - no one in NJ or NYC gets me when it's 3:00 a.m. on a Saturday night and say, "You guys - I just want a garbage plate or chester cab pizza".

This is normally after I've whined that no one knows what a Purple Hooter is except the staff at Richmonds off of East Ave. Dooooooh!

[Wcross]

13. I grew up in Fairport, T.K.'s Pizza is what I use to judge others.

I get up there twice a year, always go out with a buddy to get a garbage plate.

[Solar_Power]

15. Most of these are speculators -- NOT property owners who buy homes for themselves