An August Surprise from Obama?

[Common Sense Party]

Source: Reuters

Main Street may be about to get its own gigantic bailout. Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth. An estimated 15 million U.S. mortgages – one in five – are underwater with negative equity of some $800 billion. Recall that on Christmas Eve 2009, the Treasury Department waived a $400 billion limit on financial assistance to Fannie and Freddie, pledging unlimited help. The actual vehicle for the bailout could be the Bush-era Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, a sister program to Obama’s loan modification effort. HARP was just extended through June 30, 2011.

The move, if it happens, would be a stunning political and economic bombshell less than 100 days before a midterm election in which Democrats are currently expected to suffer massive, if not historic losses. The key date to watch is August 17 when the Treasury Department holds a much-hyped meeting on the future of Fannie and Freddie. A few key points:

1) Republican leaders believe this is going to happen since GOPers and Democratic moderates in the Senate are unwilling to spend more taxpayer money on more stimulus. But such a housing plan would allow the White House to sidestep congressional objections and show voters it is doing something tangible about an economy that seems to be weakening.

2) Wall Street banks are alerting their clients privately to this possibility. Here is what some are cautiously saying publicly. This from Goldman Sachs:

GSE policies are one of a dwindling number of policy levers the administration has left to pull, so it is conceivable that changes could be made, though there is no sign that a policy change is imminent. The Treasury’s essentially unlimited ability to provide financial support to the GSEs creates an interesting situation over the next twelve months: the GSEs could potentially be used to provide additional support for the housing market and, to a lesser extent, the broader economy in 2H 2001.

{excerpt}

Read more: http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/08/05/an-august-surprise-from-obama/

---

Brilliant move? Or too little, too late?

[DJ13]

1. Too late, and very ill timed

This should have been done a year ago, now it will be an obvious political ploy for the election.

[Renew Deal]

3. Thanks for proving my point

:thumbsup:

[tridim]

10. Call it whatever you want, it's stimulative and helps actual people.

We already know you reflexively hate whatever Obama does, but do you have anything new to add to the debate?

[stevenleser]

107. Your response makes me glad I have that person on "IGNORE!"

People criticize me for have a large ignore list. Some people's crap is just so obviously not worth hearing.

[county worker]

12. Even though it may help some people and help the economy recover we shouldn't do it

because it is a ploy right?

[DJ13]

17. Im just telling you how it will be spun

My personal feeling is its a good idea, but Im just sorry it comes too late to help millions of already foreclosed on homeowners.

[elleng]

31. ANYTHING will be spun adverse to Admin/Dems.

Unfortunately banks/lenders didn't get the 'hint' that they help relieve mortgage-holders troubles, so they deserve an ORDER of this sort, imo.

[DJ13]

32. True

I hope this works, we need to get the economy back on track.

[Arkana]

51. If it's a good idea, WHY NOT DO IT????????????

[CreekDog]

84. don't worry about spin

they'll do it anyway and knowing that, just make sure what will be spun negatively is worth doing.

it is.

[Phx_Dem]

87. Who cares how it's spun? Obama would resusitate a dying child on the street,

and it'd be spun that he was molesting him. The better the policy/idea, the worse the spin.

This is good.

[SkyDaddy7]

99. It would be spun as an election ploy anyway regardless when he did it.

[elehhhhna]

104. This would inspire a backfire/backlash of gargantuan proportions.

[joeglow3]

100. No, because it keeps home prices artifically high

I was prudent and stayed in my house longer than I wanted to because I would not pay the premium to move up. My family of 5 is living in a cramped house, but we felt it was smart to wait for a fair price before moving up. Now, just when prices are starting to come down to where they belong, our President is going to jack the prices back up. Thus, I, as a the intelligent home buyer, will get to pay 50-75k more than a house is worth.

Yeah that pisses me off.

[Arkana]

50. Political or not, why does it matter if it helps people?

Jesus, you and yours not only have to have what you want, you have to have it at the exact time you want it.

[WI_DEM]

53. Obama passed the biggest stimulus in history last year, and since congress doesn't want

to pass anymore, if he does this it's an extention to what he's already begun, but then some here will never give Obama credit for anything.

[Aramchek]

78. People have very short attention spans.

If this had been done a year ago, the Repukes would have demonized it by now.

Doing it right before the election will keep it fresh on everyones minds.

Do you really think the voter who is getting helped on a home loan is going to care if it's an election ploy?!?

[CreekDog]

83. If it helps people and the economy, it's the right thing to do

it may be late, but it's not *too* late to help.

[vaberella]

91. nothing is too late if it gets to help people. n/t

[mzmolly]

105. I'm all for ploys that help average

Americans.

[DailyGrind51]

115. He is running out of options, given the unemployment numbers.

The President has the tendency to think about an issue beyond the point of effective implementation.

[Renew Deal]

2. It was a brilliant move when Obama wasn't doing it. Now that he might

DUers will moan and groan about "too little too late."

[Aramchek]

79. they'll do anything but give the man some credit when credit's due.

that is just a little too much to ask, it seems.

[girl gone mad]

90. this isn't going to happen, so I'm not sure why people are arguing about it.

The only "rumor" I've heard (from reputable sources) is that the government is looking to help homeowners refinance to a lower interest rate. Apparently, despite historically low interest rates, refis have been slow because many owners just can't qualify for the new loan (some because they are underwater). If my sources are right, the plan is not to write off the upside-down mortgage debt, but to wave some of the refinance restrictions so even underwater borrowers can qualify.

[uponit7771]

96. That is ALREADY happening, I'm currently refinancing at 125%....principial right off would do better

[Kahuna]

113. If Robert Reich or Krugman suggested it, it would be BRILLLLIANT!

:D


:sarcasm:

[xchrom]

4. Well that would be dramatic if he did.

And those home owners need it.

[arcane1]

5. "Democrats are currently expected to suffer massive, if not historic losses"

I wonder where the writer is getting that kooky notion?

[Renew Deal]

8. I noticed that.

And wondered the same thing.

[arcane1]

18. In my more paranoid moments...

I see it as part of a larger narrative, getting the public convinced that these "historic losses" are inevitable, thereby making any Dem victory appear fraudulent.

[defendandprotect]

22. . . . or making any GOP victory look legitimate . . . ???

[onenote]

15. the guy who wrote this is a well known hack with some of the worst "sources" on the planet

Here's an example:

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/29/what-mccains-polls-are-telling-him.html

[WI_DEM]

54. I agree. The Senate picture is getting better. The governors races

are showing Dems competitive in several key states like CA, TX, & FL with certain gains in MN and CT. I'm sure that Dems won't lose more than the 54 house seats they lost in '94, so where is this writer getting that this could be a historic defeat for dems? Ah, from the GOP talking points, of course. They want to depress Dems from voting.

[onenote]

67. this writer is a well known repub sympathizer, not a reporter

A week before the election in 2008 he was reporting about how his sources were telling him Obama was going to lose the electoral college vote. Really.

His "opinion" is whatever the latest GOP talking points say.

[mike_c]

6. while I understand the broader rationale for such a move...

...it would still piss me off personally because I was prudent and did NOT buy an over-valued house during the bubble, so those of us who acted wisely will end up being penalized by not being included in such a "main street stimulus." We're struggling too.

[Renew Deal]

9. How are you penalized?

And don't you also feel penalized that your ex-neighbors rotting houses are bringing down your home values?

[Lightning Count]

14. You end up getting less house for more money. nt

[mike_c]

23. I rent in a nice rural neighborhood...

...and my neighbors' houses, while about a century or so old, are not rotting by any means. All of our houses are quite small and old. About half of us in the neighborhood rent, many own their homes outright, and a relative few changed hands during the bubble years. Those are the only folks who I see benefiting from this proposal, and while I'm VERY happy to see them benefit, I wonder what this will do for those of us who didn't buy overvalued homes. Is that clearer?

[leftofcool]

28. If this deal would help only the people really in need

and did all the right things, hard working, not over buying etc... it would be good. Unfortunately, it also helps the people who paid 500K or more for a home on a 100K a year salary and now that it is only worth about 250K, they want a boon from Obama because their pile of sticks isn't worth what they paid for it. The middle class Americans who lost their jobs, got sick, had high medical bills etc... and just couldn't pay their mortgage are the ones who really need the help in this.

[tridim]

13. Neither did I, and my home is currently about 33% underwater.

Sounds like you just got lucky with your home purchase.

[mike_c]

24. what home purchase...?

I rent. I didn't buy during the bubble because it seemed an unwise thing to do.

[county worker]

16. I wish we had a name for this attitude. It goes like this. Someone is better off then me so

let's screw them so we are all screwed. Or, someone will benefit in some way but I won't so let's not let anyone benefit.

What do we call that?

[mike_c]

25. WTF are you talking about?

:shrug:

[Flatulo]

29. Doesn't this cut both ways? I.e; my neighbor's house isn't under water,

so he's better off than me, so fuck him - I demand that he subsidize my poor luck.

My house was underwater for a decade in the '86 housing crash. I couldn't refinance, sell or do anything except suck it up until the market returned 10 years later.

I lost a fortune in my 401K. Poor me. I need the taxpayers to make me whole again.

[county worker]

36. I've been up and down so many times I lost count.

I lost all the equity I had in my house that sold in 2009. I'm pissed but I can't do anything about it. If someone gets a break on their house good for them.

[Flatulo]

38. But such a break has to be paid for by someone. I'd rather see money

spent on health care and education than a guaranteed ROI.

[CreekDog]

85. I bought my house in 2004 and it's now worth less than the mortgage

it was overvalued in 2004 --as it turns out.

however, i had no way of knowing it was overvalued. it looked overvalued in 2000, but the price hasn't dropped anywhere near that level. there's just no way of knowing.

i also don't think any of your money is going to help me, though if it is, i'm certain that some of my money has helped you in some way or fashion.

[Kahuna]

114. We usually call that, being a repuke or teabagger. nt

[femrap]

27. I understand what you're saying...

It rewards those people who took on more debt than they should have. It rewards bad judgment.

I'm all for helping people who need help, but I really don't like helping some yuppie who overbought on a McMansion.

There will have to be a income tax on the amount forgiven....otherwise it's totally unfair.

Hell, when I sold my condo for a $3,000 loss, I couldn't write it off. That is against the IRS rules.

Maybe the gov't will set up local Fannie and Freddie offices and I can get a fucking job passing paper around!!!

[leftofcool]

30. +1

[dipsydoodle]

34. Yes - It rewards past poor judgment ,

those who "spent" their homes for whatever reason, and it is from that direction it will be attacked by the other side.

[county worker]

47. You may not like this either.

I am buying a house for $354K. The sellers paid $510K in 2005. They are a military family who were permanently relocated to another base. They still owe around $500K. A program called HAP (homeowners assistance program) is going to pay off the balance they owe or the difference between what they sell it at and what they owe. The money comes from ARRA funds.

You say people who made a bad decision are being rewarded. Maybe so but they didn't intend to be where they are. The sooner the economy recovers the better for all of us. I don't mind of someone gets a hand up.

[pezDispenser]

57. Not true in all cases

I live in the Phoenix area. We bought our modest home in 2005, 20% down - 30 year fixed. Our mortgage is less than 25% of our take home and we've never been late on our payment. Basically we bought our home in a maner that most would call the 'right way'. Fast forward 5 years, our home is worth 50% of the original price.

So basically we're facing 2 choices:

1. Suck it up and keep throwing bad money after good. Hopefully in 5 or 10 more years, we'll be back to even. God help us if we have to move for some reason outside our control in that period.

2. Walk away. AZ is a nonrecourse state and strategic foreclosures have been happening around here for years.

I'd welcome a 3rd option.

[kjackson227]

70. Have you tried a home modification loan?

These are good for people who can't make payments, who are upside down, etc., etc. There's a modification program out there that can help just about anyone, but a lot of people won't call and talk to their mortgage companies about their options. Here's a link that explains how they work.

So, even though you probably won't get your equity back in the home, they can still re-work your loan to reflect what your home is worth now. Could mean savings for you.

http://www.zillow.com/blog/what-is-a-loan-modification-and-who-qualifies-for-one/2009/02/

[pezDispenser]

89. thanks for the tip

We've called and the disqualifier for us on this program is our mortgage is way below the required terms. To be eligable, one needs to have a mortgage payment that is 38% (or greater) of thier monthly gross. Ours is 17%.

[uponit7771]

97. Your premise is presumputuous and false, we took on WAAAAAY less debt than our salaries WHEN we both

...had jobs and took on way less home debt than we could pay for and STILL lost equity in a FAST growing housing area.

Facts matter

[tomp]

95. agreed.

there's a reason i didn't buy. but it seems like i might have to pay anyway, and all while social security gets gutted,
just in time for my retirement.

if people were duped into toxic financial arrangements, they should sue.

if they got burned speculating, well...i thought the market was supposed to take care of that.

so instead we bail out the criminals and the gamblers. brilliant hyperchess! what a country!

[Beetwasher]

7. Brilliant Move, It Will Immediatley Lower MANY People's Mortgage Payments And That Will Be REAL $$$$

In their pockets and immediately stimulative. I hope this is true.

[Xenotime]

11. This is wonderful. Anytime the little man can get ahead is a good thing.

[femrap]

19. This doesn't necessarily

help the 'little' guy. People who over-bought on a McMansion will get help....are they 'little?'

I'd need to see the details. If this debt is forgiven....the amount will need to be taxed as income.

[elleng]

33. Maybe helps BOTH 'little guy' and McMansion guy. So?

[femrap]

39. You really want to

help some Goldman Sachs Repugnant dude that bought some McMansion?

There will have to be certain taxes on the amount forgiven. That would be fair.

Watch....only the McMansion dude will benefit and not the single mother. Let's wait for details, if in fact this is true.

Hard-working people who have saved money and acted responsibly when purchasing a home won't feel good about this. Obviously you haven't sacrificed and saved your money for something you wanted. You must be a what I call a 'debt dog' who expects to have whatever they want NOW and at no sacrifice whatsoever.

Go help the rich folks who overbought....go ahead.

[elleng]

43. wtf???

'You must be a what I call a 'debt dog' who expects to have whatever they want NOW and at no sacrifice whatsoever.'

We haven't met (fortunately!)

What a bunch of b.s. you spin, dump on EVERYONE, why don't you? and you know that 'hard working people who have saved money and acted responsibly won't feel good about this?' and that it was those bad goldman sachs 'repugs' who bought mcmansions?

You obviously are not aware of HOW MANY, and WHO, 'overbought,' due to their friendly mortgage-broker, who promised them the world.

[superconnected]

45. Pulled - on second though, re-reading his post - I think you're right.

[elleng]

59. thx

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. What about the "little guys" (and girls) who rent?

When do they get a break? Mortgage payments can already be written off of taxes, and home"owners" have the ability to use their residence as an ATM, if need be.

There's a lot of people out there who can't afford house payments for whatever reason who are stuck paying the rent every month, whether they have money or not. How do those people get a break?

[JoeyT]

69. You don't and you probably won't.

You can all come sit by those of us that aren't married and don't have kids.

[Sebastian Doyle]

86. Oh, I'm already there.

No "tax breaks" for me at all. Of course I'm also unemployed, so I'm not really paying taxes at the moment anyway, but that's beside the point.

[dflprincess]

94. In most areas of the country renters are statistically less apt to vote

that's why we get screwed.

Minnesota does offer renters a property tax refund. It's based on your income + what percentage of your rent goes to property tax. The income cap for renters is much lower than what it is for homeowners and their property tax credit (aka the "homestead credit").

My Mom, whose only income is Social Security, saw her rent credit drop by over $100 this year. Everytime Minnesota has budget problems they attack the renter's refund.

[joeglow3]

101. You will get a nice big stick up the ass.

This move will keep home prices over-inflated, meaning landlords can command more rent out of their houses. Thus, you will get to continue to pay more than you should in rent.

[JVS]

74. The little man generally rents.

[jpak]

20. Goiod for Obama, Dems and the US of A

bad news for the GOP

yup

[defendandprotect]

21. Freddie and Fannie are still looking for $8 billion in bailouts????

Think I read that and not reconciled yet?

This sounds like good news -- haven't read it closely -- hope that's true!!

[Turbineguy]

26. Bush's HARP

That would certainly be an unintended consequence of another Bush wonderpiece.

[Flatulo]

35. I wouldn't object to this for people whose homes are actually in forclosure due to job loss

or illness, but for the homeowner whose only hardship is that his/her investment has lost value, no way. Investments lose value all the time.

Do we really want a guaranteed return on investment to be a new human right?

[mike_c]

37. +1

[dipsydoodle]

40. Now that does sound fairer.

.

[phleshdef]

58. This wouldn't establish that as a new right at all. BIGGEST RECESSION IN 70+ YEARS.

During special times of hardship, we have to do things differently than we do during the good times. More foreclosures, regardless of the reason for them, is only going to make the economy worse and lead to even more Americans suffering from a low quality of life.

And a home isn't just a damn investment, its a basic need.

[JVS]

76. Agreed!

[uponit7771]

98. Only if a person was lied to about the investment or a few bubbled a market and let it crash

[Gecko6400]

42. So if that happens

does that mean that people, retirement funds, states etc who own Freddie/Fannie Mae bond are SOL like what happened to those owning GM bonds?? How will these bonds be paid off?

IMO this is going to upset a lot of people who slaved and sacrificed for 30 years to own their home or are doing everything possible to stay in one. This would be very disheartening to these people and will hurt this Admin. in the end.

[greiner3]

44. To all of the DUers tjat bemoan the 'rich' getting by;

Fannie and Freddie Mac have a loan ceiling. It is about $350,000, I believe. While that may buy a lot of house, in some neighborhoods, overall that is not a great amount to spend on a house. The loans that are over what Fannie and Freddie are able to loan are called Jumbo loans. A recent thread here said that Jumbo loans were actually twice as likely to go into foreclosure. It is this kind of loan that will not be benefited by the proposed (gossiped about) act.

[riskpeace]

46. Now this is a bailout package,

I could support! Although it seems like the Treasury would have to write checks on most of the houses in Florida, Nevada, Arizona, California, etc.

[laureloak]

48. Reward bad money management? Not just No, but Hell No!

Investing in a home is like investing in a business. Sometimes the market improves and so does the value of your investment, and sometimes the value drops and you're out $$$. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to bail outeither bad business investments or bad home investments.

Those upside down should face the consequences of a poor decision by filing for bankruptcy and living through 10 years of rebuilding time like everyone else has had to do forever. The buyers are responsible for overextending their finances, not the lenders.

[Arkana]

52. Yeah, cause actively giving the American people the middle finger works so well

when you're a Democrat.

[bvar22]

62. I'm an American Democrat,

and this plan (if true) gives me the middle finger.
I bought a "shack" well within my means and have spent thousands of hours investing "sweat equity" while others in my same income bracket went upscale and overbought because "property always appreciates" despite warnings that residential property values were way overinflated and due to "reset".

I thought I was being prudent.
This makes me feel like a fool.
Where is my "bailout"?

[WI_DEM]

55. So bailout the big guys but not average people? I think everybody deserves another chance.

[AngryAmish]

108. THis is bailing out the bog guys

People own bonds that have lost a lot of money. Mortgage backed securities and whatnot. The toxic waste everyone was talking about. Now they get to sell these bonds to Freddie/Fammie/you/me (who have unlimited funds, including printing money), big guys get these shitty loan bonds off their books and we get the bill.

Nice.

[phleshdef]

56. Right. We are experiencing record foreclosures just because people made bad decisions.

Nevermind the lack of jobs leading to a lack of money leading to a lack of perfectly responsible people unable to pay for their homes and have had to deal with the value of those same homes going down because the American economy wasn't there for them when they needed it.

I'm all for personal responsibility and if this economy was working for the people the way it should, then I would totally agree with letting people pay for taking on debt they couldn't afford. But this is the worst recession in 70+ years. Special times call for special considerations given.

I think you need to rethink your blind to the world Republican talking points.

[stevenleser]

109. Massive and in all other ways Total FAIL n/t

[Arkana]

49. We shall see.

It'll be interesting if the Republicans knee-jerk block this after all the hemming and hawing they did about Fannie and Freddie.

[Ignis]

60. And to renters: You get nothing, once again.

Same as it ever was. :argh:

Disclosure: Yes, helping people who made poor decisions to buy overpriced homes during a housing bubble and/or were cheated by unscrupulous lenders is good for the economy and good for those people in underwater homes. But homeowners already get so many perks compared to renters (please remember this latter group tends to be poorer to start with), it would be nice to spread out the wealth a little rather than focusing yet again upon the American Dream of home ownership.

:rant:

[phleshdef]

61. People in poverty who rent have and have had government assistance programs available for ages.

[Ignis]

63. Oh, did I specify "renters in poverty?"

You're overlooking the larger issue:

Government/Tax benefits for homeowners: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Government/Tax benefits for renters: ++

You don't see a problem with that, given that renters tend to be in the lower half of the economic spectrum?

[phleshdef]

64. As a renter for 10 years and a home buyer for the past 2, no I don't see the problem.

My house payment combined with my mortage insurance, my hazard insurance and my property taxes (something rents don't even have to pay themselves) cost me a lot more than renting did. If anything goes wrong with my house, like with heating, air conditioning, plumbing or my roof, then I have to pay for it and get it fixed myself. I also have to pay for my own water and trash pickup, which I never had to do as a renter (some places differ on the water).

At the end of the day, I pay a lot more to keep my house up and to pay my property taxes than any benefits I get tax wise. The only thing I can do is write off my mortage interest. Aside from the one time tax credit they were giving the stimulate the housing market last year, I've not experienced any worthwhile benefits just for being a homeowner, other than some day between now and 28 years from now, and probably a hundred thousand dollars more than the principle amount of my loan, I can finally say I own the damn thing.

[Ignis]

68. Well, that's nice for you that you end up owning a house.

What about those who are never afforded that opportunity--who, once again, tend to be poorer than homeowners and are thus likely to be more hurt by economic downturns?

[phleshdef]

72. That has nothing to do with what you were talking about.

You were making the argument that home owners get some grand amount of tax benefits that renters do not get and I'm telling you as a both a renter and a homeowner, when all is taken into account of both situations, that simply is not true.

[Ignis]

75. No, I mentioned tax benefits as a part of the larger whole.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but if you compare the advantages across the board provided to homeowners vs. renters in our society, the disparity is alarming.

I wouldn't expect Republicans to piss on renters if they were on fire, but I would like to think that we're a little different from them on this issue. Am I wrong?

[Robbins]

65. Brillent move

Forgive mortgae debt can help millions of Americans.Of course Republicans will decry this as redistribution of wealth and some here
will say too little too late.

And remember this about the midterms back In 2006 Democrats won 30 seats.Now to take back the House Republicans have to avoid any losses and win 39 seats.Beating the 2006 record.

Remember In the senate Harry Reid Is almost certainly going to win against Angel In Nevada.Colorado,North Carolana,and Kentuckey
are all tossups not safe Republican wins.Fisher has a shot at beating Portman In Ohio.Boxer Is slowly gaining In California.Kirk has shot himself In the foot In Illinois.Palin may end up helping In NH.Republicans pushing Crist out In florida may see him win and caucus with the Democrats.

As for Goverors Democrats may win In California,Florida,and Texas! Ned Lamont may very well be the next governor of CT,and Mark dayton has good chance to become governor of Minnesotta.It has been many years without a Democrat as governor of Minnesotta.
Roy barnes has shot at returning to power In Georgia.Now we will probally lose the governorships In Iowa,PA,Michigan,and Wisconsion.
But both Strickland In Ohio and Patrick In Mass both thought In trouble may both be reelected.

hardly bloodbath the MSM keeps telling us Is coming.To win Republicans need high turnout by Conservatives and lowturn out by Progressives and Moderates.

[kjackson227]

66. Well, it might be too late for some, but a lot will still be helped from it. eom

[JoeyT]

71. A bloody terrible idea.

We'd be far better served by taking all the money that would be spent on that and spending it on infrastructure repair. Then the people that are underwater could actually get the money they need to pay off their homes, and they'd be employed to boot. That would be tangible change that even helped the people that weren't directly helped by the program. Plus we'd be repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

Forgiving part of their debt when they still have no job only helps the wealthier of the lot. The people that are behind because they're unemployed are just going to lose their homes later rather than sooner.

[Common Sense Party]

73. That's the correct answer. Which is why JOBS should have been

last year's priority, in front of SHAM health care "reform."

[woo me with science]

77. + 10000000000 nt

[Aramchek]

80. funny, people whose homes will be saved think it's genius

[flpoljunkie]

102. Except you need Congress to pass a bill to do this. Aint't gonna happen.

[stevenleser]

111. [phone] yes, the person to whom you are responding needs to come up with 60 votes in the senate

for what he is suggesting. Otherwise, its wishful thinking. We almost couldnt get 60 votes for unemployment benefits. Does anyone actually think we are going to get GOP convert votes for more infrastructure spending? There is ZERO chance of that.

[grantcart]

81. Rumors that Republicans believe - not even bothering with sources now

Just take the latest rumor as a Republican if he believes it and off to the internet.


Could there be a lower bar.


I think that the National Enquirer has higher standards than this.

[stevenleser]

112. Yep, if I had a dollar for everytime Reuters and AP did this. I wrote an article a few years back

illustrating a similar occurrence at AP. After that, I stopped noting them they were so frequent. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060604_associated_press_wri.htm

[backwoodsbob]

82. tere is one BIG worry for me in this

is the fed going to eat the cost?

If so it will push the one year deficit to over two TRILLION dollars.

Politically we will take a hit for that even if we get more support from those who get help,which we of course will.

[MikeW]

92. the money has to come from somewhere

still arnt any darn money trees ... although I keep hoping !!!

[BootinUp]

88. How do we know this is not just another trap

where the media and some very savvy bastards are starting a ridiculous rumor.

[LittleBlue]

93. Dumb move. It is so obviously political and not altruistic

that few will be taken in by this.

Not to mention that it means home prices will once again begin their upward spiral in a new debt bubble, with taxpayers who had no loans footing the bill for those who do. Ugh, terrible.

[Javaman]

103. Meh.

On paper it looks good, a bit late, but good. However, will it have as much success as the mortgage bailout that was never implemented?

I cheer nothing.

I hope for plenty.

I am not surprised if little is delivered.

Welcome to the new mediocrity.

[Steely_Dan]

106. So Many Are Saying...

that this rewards bad behavior...poor judgement. Have we forgotten that many people (not all) were victims of predatory lending?

-PLA

[flpoljunkie]

110. Evidently, some have forgotten that and the banks' role in the meltdown, as well.