Posted on 02/19/2009 3:24:39 AM PST by Scanian
President Obama yesterday announced his plan to prevent home foreclosures, saying he wanted 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 . . . And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."
We really do wish he were right. In fact, the details released yesterday suggest the President's plan will do all of the above. The plan will help some struggling homeowners. But by investing in failure, the Administration will also prolong the housing downturn and make financing a home purchase more difficult for future borrowers. Meanwhile, the plan isn't likely to slow the continuing decline in housing prices.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Says one thing and does the opposite. So typical of this guy. Why listen to a lier?
What investors, businesses and working Americans want to hear is a President with ideas to spur economic recovery. What they've been getting are plans for a long national Chapter 11 workout
and pork crap and grow government crap...
“Investing in failure”. About sums up the administration’s motto.
Punish success and subsidize losers. The Democrat recipe for unending political control.
This is what I don’t understand about the housing issue. Since when was anybody guaranteed a return on their home investment.
We’ve bought and sold houses over the years...but we bought with 20 percent down, bought at a price that would not put our mortgage at more than 25 percent of our income, and basically took a gamble that we would make money in the long run. But like any gamble sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t. It’s only in the last few years that the prices have skyrocketed, and everybody thought their home investment was some sort of “money tree” that would automatically produce dollars.
These folks who put nothing down, don’t deserve equity (the principal right down has me fuming.) They can look at their mortgage payments as the “rent” they would have been paying elsewhere...it costs to live, no matter if you own, or rent. I have a couple friends, who were long established middle aged business people, and when they lost their jobs, they sold their homes and moved into rented condos. They did the financially responsible thing (and they didn’t walk away with equity because the prices in their area had fallen significantly.)
It’s just a bad idea for the government to start tinkering with rates and principal for a certain percentage of the homeowners. Who knows what the outcome will be, plus it breeds discontent in the majority of other homeowners and renters who are financing the “fix” through taxpayer dollars..
Who ever bought a house they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford?
El hombre agradable en la compañía de hipoteca me dijo que la casa doblaría en valor el próximo año y podría venderlo y ser rico.(The nice man at the mortgage company told me the house would double in value next year and I could sell it and be rich.)
Μολὼν λάβε
I’m a mortgage broker (i.e., I’m starving to death!)who, coincidentally, has a large hispanic clientelle. Many of my customers bought houses on a shoestring thinking that they could “flip” them for a substantial profit after just a few months. I never made a pitch like the “hipotequero agradable”—it wasn’t necessary. Plenty of buyers had that notion to start off. There is room for blame all around in the mortgage mess: unscrupulous lenders and brokers, yes. But also pressure tactics from government and certain greedy, unrealistic buyers as well.
I’ve noticed quite a bit of talk over the last few months/years about “predatory lenders”, but never any about “predatory borrowers”, of which there seem to be many.
There certainly were. While real estate prices were skyrocketing, some of them would come into my office practically frothing at the mouth. “Get it while the gettin’s good” seemed to be the typical attitude.
Obama is planning a Socialist progressive pricing scheme. It will be implemented in stages. This is the first step. He will set prices for goods and services according to income. The 100 dollar good will only cost a poor person 10 dollars and a rich one 200 dollars. Fair...ain’t it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.