Housing bailout

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,513
208
63
Bowling Green Ky
WASHINGTON (AP) - A massive foreclosure rescue bill cleared a key Senate test Tuesday by an overwhelming margin, with Democrats and Republicans both eager to claim election-year credit for helping hard-pressed homeowners.

The mortgage aid plan would let the Federal Housing Administration back $300 billion in new, cheaper home loans for an estimated 400,000 distressed borrowers who otherwise would be considered too financially risky to qualify for government-insured, fixed-rate loans.

An 83-9 vote put the plan on track for Senate passage as early as Wednesday, but President Bush is threatening a veto, and Democrats are fighting each other over key details. Those challenges will probably delay any final deal until mid-July.

The bill advanced as separate reports underscored rising economic anxiety: Consumer confidence slid to its lowest level in more than 16 years, and closely watched indices showed a continuing decline in home values.

At the Capitol, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, said the lending measure "would allow us to begin to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of foreclosures in this country."

"We need to demonstrate to people in this country that have lost an awful lot of faith in almost everything, but certainly in (Congress), that we can get something done, that we can put aside differences and make a difference in their lives," Dodd said.

Still, conservative Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" are concerned about how to pay for the measure, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus call it unacceptable, arguing it doesn't do enough to address the needs of black Americans.
Congressional leaders also are divided on how high to place loan limits that apply to government mortgage insurance and financing. The Senate bill sets those limits at $625,000 while a House-passed version puts them at $730,000 - a crucial difference in high-cost housing markets like California, home to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Lawmakers have been negotiating behind the scenes with the Bush administration to avert a veto. Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, told reporters the Senate measure has "some really good aspects" and Congress is "on the right path."

"We have been working closely with them to try to change the bill in a way that we think that it could be something that the president could sign," Perino said.

Borrowers would be eligible for the housing rescue if their mortgage holders were willing to take a substantial loss and allow them to refinance, and if they could show an ability to make payments on the new loan. They would ultimately have to share with the government a portion of any profits they made from selling or refinancing their properties.

The bill also would tighten controls and create a new regulator for Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), the mortgage giants that provide huge amounts of cash flow to the home loan market by buying loans from banks.

It would provide a $14.5 billion array of tax breaks, including a credit of up to $8,000 for first-time homebuyers who buy in the next year. And it would boost low-income tax credits and mortgage revenue bonds. The measure falls $2.4 billion short of covering the costs of those tax items, a sort point for Blue Dogs who oppose initiatives that add to the deficit.

Mixing in a controversy involving lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats on the Ethics Committee proposed adding mortgage disclosure requirements for members of Congress to the bill following a flap over reports that Dodd and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., got preferential home loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. (CFC), a lender at the center of the subprime mortgage mess. The proposal by John Cornyn of Texas, the senior Republican on the committee, and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairman, would remove an exception that currently allows lawmakers to omit home mortgages from their annual financial disclosures.

On the broader bill, the 42 House members of the Black Caucus said in a letter to Democratic leaders last week that it has "glaring omissions," including affordable housing funds for states affected by Hurricane Katrina and grants for states and localities to buy and fix up foreclosed properties.

To draw GOP support, Senate Democrats diverted the affordable housing money to pay for the foreclosure aid program.

Some Republicans, however, are still vehemently opposed to the legislation, which they describe as a government giveaway for reckless lenders and investors.

"They expect the federal government to turn their backs on responsible lenders and borrowers and renters waiting - waiting - to become first-time homeowners, and support those groups that have pushed our housing market into decline with bad loans and bad investments," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. "This bill is a federal government bailout."

The Senate bill would provide $3.9 billion in grants to deal with foreclosed properties - a House plan would provide $15 billion - but the White House singled out the funds in its veto threat, and Blue Dogs are demanding that the money be offset with cuts elsewhere.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the Financial Services Committee chairman, has said he'd be willing to jettison the money and add it to a separate measure in the interest of a deal.
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,751
256
83
54
BG, KY, USA
so this means nothing if you haven't bought a house over your head and make your payments on time every month, right? :mj07:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
so this means nothing if you haven't bought a house over your head and make your payments on time every month, right? :mj07:

it means that YOU`LL be bailing the irresponsible and the criminal out,my brother...

the whole bunch...the idiots that can`t read a contract...the lenders...the politicians that got sweetheart deals...the whole bunch...

what makes this stink even worse is that dem politicians like chris dodd(who are involved in this drecchh)......knee deep in getting benefit from the perpetrators....are the ones behind bailing them out....

and pelosi refuses to investigate...

things sure have changed since the dems took control of congress,haven`t they?....
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I must have missed the outrage from the usual suspects when the government bailed out that brokerage company a few months ago.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
it means that YOU`LL be bailing the irresponsible and the criminal out,my brother...

the whole bunch...the idiots that can`t read a contract...the lenders...the politicians that got sweetheart deals...the whole bunch...

what makes this stink even worse is that dem politicians like chris dodd(who are involved in this drecchh)......knee deep in getting benefit from the perpetrators....are the ones behind bailing them out....

and pelosi refuses to investigate...

things sure have changed since the dems took control of congress,haven`t they?....

I am afraid it is not that simple. Due to your stupid little war in Iraq and the monies spent over there our dollar is now worth nothing. Add to that Big Oil driving the price of oil up to unheard of levels while they make never before heard of profits....someone explain that to me? But be that all as it may....A person buys a house. All the experts tell him it is the best thing he can do. Even Bush was taking pride iin how many Americans were buying houses during his time in office. Add to that the experts again telling the buyer what a great investment it is. Real Estate prices always go up. You will have equity. You can send your kids to colllege.
Then, let's take the rug out from under them. Home prices free fall under the weight of the cost of the war. People start losing there jobs. Inflation sets in as gas prices hit all time highs.
Next thing you know the poor bugger can't afford his mortgage, but instead of his house appreciating the last 5 or 10 years it has depreciated. He finds himself upside down in the mortgage. Hiis equity gone.
So you guys come on and call him names because he tried to live the American dream you guys sold him!
Oh yeah, the experts who sold him the mortgage. You have no problem bailing them out.

What a great f'in country. No wonder we are going down the toilet as fast as Bush can flush.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
I am afraid it is not that simple. Due to your stupid little war in Iraq and the monies spent over there our dollar is now worth nothing. Add to that Big Oil driving the price of oil up to unheard of levels while they make never before heard of profits....someone explain that to me? But be that all as it may....A person buys a house. All the experts tell him it is the best thing he can do. Even Bush was taking pride iin how many Americans were buying houses during his time in office. Add to that the experts again telling the buyer what a great investment it is. Real Estate prices always go up. You will have equity. You can send your kids to colllege.
Then, let's take the rug out from under them. Home prices free fall under the weight of the cost of the war. People start losing there jobs. Inflation sets in as gas prices hit all time highs.
Next thing you know the poor bugger can't afford his mortgage, but instead of his house appreciating the last 5 or 10 years it has depreciated. He finds himself upside down in the mortgage. Hiis equity gone.
So you guys come on and call him names because he tried to live the American dream you guys sold him!
Oh yeah, the experts who sold him the mortgage. You have no problem bailing them out.

What a great f'in country. No wonder we are going down the toilet as fast as Bush can flush.

you and kosar can try and change the subject...but it still doesn`t explain why there isn`t an investigation into dodd and cconrad`s sweetheart deals....

the democrats have changed exactly nothing...

i hope you have the stones to admit it`s business as usual...
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
I must have missed the outrage from the usual suspects when the government bailed out that brokerage company a few months ago.

And the lefist outcry on this forum for the previous bailout are where for this one?? All I hear are crickets ( and StevieD kooky rantings )


Its a two way street, sir. That's all I'm saying......
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
you and kosar can try and change the subject...but it still doesn`t explain why there isn`t an investigation into dodd and cconrad`s sweetheart deals....

the democrats have changed exactly nothing...

i hope you have the stones to admit it`s business as usual...

lol- change the subject? I think the two situations are worthy of comparison. It's just interesting how you could hear the crickets chirping with the corporate government bailout, but somehow this is wrong. Personally, I think both are wrong, but I do my best to be consistent. That's not a big concern with 'some' of you.

Yes, there should be an investigation and I also agree that the dems have changed nothing. Nancy Pelosi is a walking disaster.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
And the lefist outcry on this forum for the previous bailout are where for this one?? All I hear are crickets ( and StevieD kooky rantings )


Its a two way street, sir. That's all I'm saying......

I posted before I saw this post, and I agree with you.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I don't see where anything here is changing the subject. You righties did not complain when they bailed out the banks. I have repeatedly said how disappointed I am in the Dems and especially Pelosi so I don't know what you are looking for?

As for stones at least some of us are consistent while others just want to blame the dems for everything and never mention the previous 6 years of repeublican control that got us into this mess in the first place. But maybe that's why you are loking for stones because you don't have any of your own.:shrug:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
seems like there is very little coverage of dodd and conrad`s sweetheart deals....

a cover-up i could understand....but the public are in essence paying for bad behavior...and helping line the pockets of fat cats like dodd...


he was getting sweetheart deals from the bad guys(countrywide)....and to add the cherry on top,he`s the chairman of the senate banking committee!...

"i knew i got a good rate but i didn`t know the specifics"....

HE`S THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FRICKING SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE!!!!!...does this sound familiar?.....maybe like the guy who sat in a racist church for twenty years and heard nothing?....

tell me why he`s still the chairman?...anybody think if he were a republican this wouldn`t be PLASTERED on the front page of every newspaper?....

i could just hear olbermann..

i hope bush vetoes the deal....

i don`t feel like paying for stupidity and i`m certainly not for putting MORE money in hypocrite dodd`s pockets...

he should be out on his ear...
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,767
334
83
53
Belly of the Beast
I think that both the corporate bailout and the pending homeowner bailouts are/were necessary.

But, don't worry about footing the bill, we never pay for anything, China, the Saudis and Japan do.

God Bless 'em
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
A massive foreclosure rescue bill cleared a key Senate test Tuesday by an overwhelming margin, with Democrats and Republicans both eager to claim election-year credit for helping hard-pressed homeowners.

It seems that the first line of the story shares blame across party lines on this one. :shrug:

I don't understand how there was a bail-out for the firm, and I don't understand how there should be a bail out now. I also don't think adding this to the pile just because of the mistake of bailing out the firm is a big help.

Squeezing the middle class at its best, in my opinion. Do you think the real middle class will qualify for this?

I define the "real" middle class as the hard working 40-50 hours per week hourly wage earners who make the cogs move. These folks will be stuck paying their "fair" share of the bail-out of the less responsible folks (no matter how good the marketing is, I feel the ultimate responsibility on this one is of a personal note) in this country.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
It seems that the first line of the story shares blame across party lines on this one. :shrug:

I don't understand how there was a bail-out for the firm, and I don't understand how there should be a bail out now. I also don't think adding this to the pile just because of the mistake of bailing out the firm is a big help.

Squeezing the middle class at its best, in my opinion. Do you think the real middle class will qualify for this?

I define the "real" middle class as the hard working 40-50 hours per week hourly wage earners who make the cogs move. These folks will be stuck paying their "fair" share of the bail-out of the less responsible folks (no matter how good the marketing is, I feel the ultimate responsibility on this one is of a personal note) in this country.
Good point, any bail out has to help the middle class or it is uselss. The best thing they could do, in my opinion, would be to lower the prime. That would help everyone.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Isn't the prime rate already at like .005%?

No, as I read it today the prime rate is 5.00. Most mortgages are tied to the prime rate. The rate the Feds keep cutting is the rate the banks charge each other which has little to no affect on mortgages. I could be wrong but most ARM's are like the prime plus 1 ot 2 points. Which is why everybody is concerned because if they raise the prime, say to keep inflation in check, then the mortgages go up.
There are guys here who know more than me but that is how I understand it.
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
In my humble opinion, there is no bail out. We made a mistake as individuals, a country... however anyone wants to look at it. When mistakes are made, there has to be a form of "punishment".

In my opinion, there should not have been a bail out of the firm. They should have paid for their sins.

And I don't think there should be a bail out of the consumer. They, too, should pay for their "sins". Ignorance (of the situation) is not an excuse, in my opinion. you can't tell me that there is not a large percentage of people who were looking to make some fast cash that are now crying foul that they were led astray.

I think the banks are just as guilty and should also pay for whatever they have to eat. But to put the ownership back on the responsible, hard-working people of this nation is a travesty.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Isn't the prime rate already at like .005%?

Exactly. That's a big part of the problem, and has been for a long time - at least as long as Bush's appointees have had control over the money situation in these organizations. Suppressing the rates to "keep the economy moving in the right direction" and deflating the dollar to the point that everything in our country costs a lot more, which hurts us all. But of course the economy looked ok, when everyone was helping tax receipts after the tax cuts by buying everything on their credit cards, and now where are they? High credit card bills, high medical costs, high gas prices, high food costs, businesses suffering and possibly laying them off, etc., etc., etc. If you live and work in the trenches, you know many people are hurting, that weren't even a couple of short years ago.

If the money controllers and this administration had not suppressed a natural and sensible rise in interest rates, then things would not have been so ballooned, and probably would not have exploded to the degree it did.

Maybe a simplistic view (I'm not an economist), but that's how I see it.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
And, at face value, I don't see why we should be bailing people out in a massive way like this, either. I railed on the other one, and don't see the value in this one much, either. Although trying to help working class Americans who (maybe mistakenly) gave home ownership a shot with a little prodding from lenders makes a bit more sense to me than bailing out massive financial institutions who knowingly conducted risky lending practices to try to make even more money - and subsequently rewarded CEO's with millions in bonuses.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top