How about we stop subsidizing this giant scam called “homeownership at any cost”?
More importantly, any loss to the mortgage companies that these new policies would create would get passed on to the people who actually pay their mortgage.
When is Congress going to figure out that businesses pass their costs on to consumers?
No bias there...how about the democrats is shoving taxpayer money at greedy home buyers and flippers, who should have never been able to purchase these homes in the first place, in an effort to but their votes...
The nanny state gripes that banks and mortgage companies don’t allow people with low incomes to buy houses and Congress passes laws against “red lining.” The lenders then must give money to people who are not qualified by their income to pay it back. They can’t pay their mortgage payments, of course, and then Congress wants to have the lenders change the contracts the borrowers signed. No doubt the lenders will insist that the government reimburse them for the difference and the Dems will think that is the compassionate thing to do...with our tax money, of course.
We deserve such treatment because we wear a tattered “KICK ME” sign into the voting booth as we persist in re-electing these grifters.
At-risk borrowers need to modify their behavior to the point at which they are no longer “at risk”!
You can’t always “have it all”; sometimes you have to set and keep priorities and defer some desires.
The government should keep it’s nose out of this. If they want to help, then stop the skyrocketing property taxes. I’ll soon be out on the streets if mine go up any more. If? Ha, they’ve gone from what amounted to 2 weeks pay 12 years ago to now 2 months pay. Yes, it’s the same house and the same job.
NYT desperately trying to stay relevant, and appease Wall Street by backing the mortgage banker bailout.
The numbers are cooked and crooked. Even if they are correct, what’s the statistical difference between 67.6 percent and 67 percent, or for that matter, 700,000 “people”. My estimation is that something on the order of 300,000 people lost their homes during Katrina/Rita. How many have repurchased? How many people are simply “in transit”?
Why not just have the government give everyone in the country a mansion on the beach for free and be done with it?
Read it carefully and you see that homeownership has gone up. They project it to go down some time in the future, but for now it is up. It will probably still be up when Bush leaves office, which is why they are qualifying their remarks to set the time frame out into 2009 some time. They won't have to be right or wrong until Bush has been out of office for some time.
It is not “mr. Bush,” you freaking troglodyte.
Its “President Bush.”
How many “immigrants” since then?
How much has the official population increased, hm?
Yep.
Since Bush took office, the population of the US has increased by about 22 million and will be around 25 million by the time he leaves office. Demographics have something to do with the percentage staying roughly the same given the fact that immigration, legal and illegal, account for 3/4 of the population increase.
The only reason home ownership is dropping is the MASSIVE influx of illegal aliens and low wage earners from Mexico.
We’ve become a nation of victims. Save us, Congress, save us!
not so much.
If they correct errors in the bankruptcy reform act they can save a large number. (going back to allowing homestead mortgages being renegotiated for the value of the collateral)
In addition they need to eliminate the tax penalty for the forclosures.
HOWEVER, this story reminds me the statistic game by the MSM. The IDENTICAL number during the clinton years was hailed as good while it was derided as bad under the GWBush years.
forgot to mention, it is not unilateral.
BOTH parties assumed the risk the collateral would devalue.
In bankruptcy, splitting the unsecured portion of the loan from the value of the collateral is logical.
When President Bush took office in 2001, homeownership stood at 67.6 percent. It rose as the mortgage bubble inflated but is projected to fall to 67 percent by early 2009, which would come to 700,000 fewer homeowners than when Mr. Bush started.
Uh... mr NY Slimes how about this; in 2001 there were 'only' about 8 million ILLEGALS in the USA. Now we have approx 30 million.
And su-prise, su-prise, those 30 million, LOW paid, UNEDUCATED, 'peons' - and CRIMINALS, who've invaded the USA aren't exactly 'home owner material'. Hell, they're not even 'tenant material' (1st hand experience).
And they're such BAD credit risks, they couldn't get a Juice Loan from the Mafia!
Hey...a NYT hit piece against the POTUS...geeeee...that’s something new. /sarcasm on.