Obama on Hillarycare for housing: Me, too! Me, too!
Barack Obama, his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination bolstered by endorsements, told a cheering union hall on Friday that he would provide relief for homeowners struggling to make mortgage payments and deliver tax cuts to the middle-class.
“We’re going to put money in the pockets of hardworking Americans who deserve it. That’s what I’m fighting for,” Obama told hotel and restaurant workers packed into the steamy union hall of the Culinary Workers Union, Local 226. The Illinois senator said he identified with their economic hardships.
How about identifying with responsible homeowners and responsible taxpayers who’ll be paying for all this election-year largesse–much of it not to Americans “who deserve it,” but to people who shouldn’t have been taking out home loans they couldn’t pay for and mortgage companies that shouldn’t have taken them on as customers?
How about them?
***
More on the candidates’ various flavors of Hillarycare from the WSJ:
The top three Democratic candidates have called for various measures that move beyond the current administration’s effort to get lenders to voluntarily modify troubled loans. The Democratic plans share elements, including the creation of a federal fund to help homeowners refinance onerous mortgages, legal protections for lenders to free them to alter individual mortgage terms, and tighter regulation of lenders to prevent future crises.
But the plans from Democrats contain some differences, which could become accentuated in Nevada, and later, in big states such as California. Both Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards have said that if the mortgage industry doesn’t voluntarily agree to enlarge and lengthen the terms of a plan backed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and agree to a foreclosure moratorium, they would force the lenders to do so through legislation.
Barack Obama opposes making laws to force such moves. An Obama adviser says that a mandatory moratorium and rate freeze — which could force lenders to hold loan interest rates below market levels — could deter them from re-entering the market and would delay the return of liquidity.
There could also be legal issues, the adviser says. “There would certainly be some serious constitutional issues to consider from the government trying to directly change the terms of millions of mortgage contracts after the fact,” the adviser says. Mr. Obama thinks the industry should make these changes voluntarily.
What about the GOP?
Republicans for the most part support President Bush’s approach on the issue, to get lenders and mortgage-bond investors to agree voluntarily to modify some troubled loans. They haven’t unveiled separate plans like the Democrats, but two candidates, Mitt Romney and John McCain, have indicated that more might need to be done should the situation worsen, a view echoed by Mr. Paulson earlier this week…
…Republicans for the most part support President Bush’s approach on the issue, to get lenders and mortgage-bond investors to agree voluntarily to modify some troubled loans. They haven’t unveiled separate plans like the Democrats, but two candidates, Mitt Romney and John McCain, have indicated that more might need to be done should the situation worsen, a view echoed by Mr. Paulson earlier this week.
“There’s clearly an additional need to consider other measures,” Mr. McCain said Wednesday. “I will know within a very short period of time whether these policies are succeeding or not,” he said of Mr. Paulson’s plan to persuade lenders voluntarily to modify some troubled mortgages. Mr. Romney has called for the creation of a business cooperative that would pool the bad loans in one entity that would then be able to handle individual solutions with homeowners. Romney’s aides also say he favors increased funding for a government chartered housing-services agency called NeighborWorks America.
Mr. Huckabee mentions the housing market in his new ad. But he hasn’t proposed government intervention. He said in Iowa that he fully supports the administration’s voluntary plan.
Messrs. Obama and Edwards support a bill currently in the Senate to amend bankruptcy law to allow judges to alter the terms of a mortgage.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Right Wing Nut House » THE DEMOCRATS IN A NUTSHELL
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”
- Dave Lucas' Notes
- car home insurance quote
- anecdotes about John
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama, Subprime crisis
Mudville Gazette
» Small the excitement, feel the heat
Daily Caller
» Live updates from Capitol Hill in the race to reformRedstate
» Kill the Bill rally in Washington.Stop The ACLU
» If The Health Bill Is Just So Darned Super Wonderful………Hot Air
» Dems in disarray in Rules committee?
Bring in the clowns! These feckless robotic purveyors of slavery, can’t they at least think up something original? They all use the same ploys to lure the indolent and dull into their trap.
Spouting “It’s Free” they unctuously slip their hand into their pocket exposing its empty contents. They then proceed to reach into all our pockets declaiming “We have funding!”
The only change this Obama clown is offering is “same $#(* different day.”
But, but, but, my house is paid for. What’s in it for me? (LOL
)
What would happen if one of these leaders just said, “Let the market take care of itself. It is not the federal government’s responsibility to take on the bad debts of it’s citizens”?
Never mind……I guess I’m speaking gibberish.
I guess Obama “feels their pain” too. Didn’t he grow up pretty well-off?
#4…The senator can identify with their pain because his wife, a hospital administrator, has been “Sticking to Americans with outrageously high prices” for quite some time! He knows their pain because he helps cause it!
Americans with more house than they can afford should follow Michelle’s advice.
Suck it up!
Let the market adjust to current conditions, this is no place for a socialist government intervention.
Michelle:
Just made your argument stronger. Sometimes less is more.
Saying that individuals shouldn’t have undertaken actions because they later failed is post hoc logic–or here in Texas, Monday morning quarterbackin’.
Because risk exists, sound processes will sometimes produce bad outcomes.
Lenders have processes for judging creditworthiness. There’s no evidence that that lenders threw their rulebooks out the window. The evidence is to the contrary because borrowers with poorer credit histories were paying higher interest rates.
Borrowers knew what they were getting into. Every loan I’ve received contained a payment schedule.
What the politicians know–and choose to ignore–is that the lenders should be bailing themselves out with the revenue from interest rate premiums paid by those borrowers who did not default..
So how can a multi-millionaire from Chicago with a Yale and Harvard education, who never held an honest job in his life, possibly identify with ordinary working people?
Why are American people not smart enough to see through this scam?
I agree that those people who overbought and those lenders who extended questionable credit in the name of greed should suck it up. The only problem is that their collective foolishness has put the economy in a dangerous place. So, like it or not, and I DON’T, to some degree, we’re all on the hook for this.
There ought to be a requirement in this “bailout” and “moratorium” that people who bought too much house put that house on the market. When it sells, the lenders who made shaky loans to them should then be required to finance a reasonable loan on a more modest abode (read if you gave them credit before, you have to give them credit now, and you cannot gouge them). Mortgage companies reduce their risk portfolio and consumers don’t end up homeless. Plus, the mortgage industry gets to do the right thing.
Free stuff, free stuff, free really expensive stuff!
His high school is about $15,000 a year these days.
The Bank of Illegals in America is buying Countrywide so that you the taxpayer will pay off those loans and they will be rolling in cash. None of which will they share with you.
I’ve suggested it before on this topic … so here goes again … there is a simple answer to many of these situations …
Require the lenders to refinance those “sub-prime” loans at a reasonable fixed rate with a payment the people can manage and extend the length of the mortgage to whatever time frame it requires to pay off the house …
As a simple example:
On a $250,000.00 mortgage financed at 6% for a standard 30 years the payment is $1498.99 and the total interest for the full term of the mortgage amounts to $298,595.47.
The same amount and interest rate for a 40 year term would be a $1375.33 payment and total interst of $410,256.37.
That is a difference in return to investors of $120,660.90 for the additional 10 years of payments.
And my way there is no bail-out, no public assistance, no tax-payer funds involved.
Simple is often the best.
I feel certain with all our amazing capabilities to do the math they could work this out so pretty much everyone involved on both sides of the problem ends up winners.
Not every person in this situation would be able to qualify for even this example … but it would surely lessen the numbers as a whole of repos and bankruptcies in the legal system.
To which I can only add
“Life su*cks get a helmet! I wanted to play center field for the Red Sox when I grew up it didn’t happen. Next issue.” -Denis Leary.
No I don’t agree with his politics since he went Hollyweird. I respect the work he’s done for the firefighters. But that quote sums it up I think. You have problems deal with them. We all have them in one way or another.
I agree with the “Suck It Up” principle to adversity. But I have to take issue with the Monday morning quarterbacking I see.
Before–not after–I buy my next house, could someone please tell me how much house I need? If I’m planning on 3-4 kids, should I buy more house than I need now? Or should we start small and move after every birth? Where should I buy? Savvy, responsible citizens buy where the market is going up. Dirtbags buy where local markets might see a downturn. How can I tell the greedy lenders from the altruistic ones? Do they have distinguishing physical characteristics like waxed handlebar mustaches or halos? If my credit isn’t good enough to get a loan at the best rate, should I tell the lender “You go to hell. I’m going back to my apartment.”? Or should I look at the payment schedule at the rate he offers and then make a decision as to whether I can afford the payments?
I’ll grant that hindsight is always sharper than foresight. But hindsight is useless. Somebody please offer evidence that borrowers and lenders acted imprudently, mindful that “He failed. Therefore, he should not have tried” is not proof.
Okay, but…getting back to his school, for $15,725 a year, don’t you think they could throw in the lunch? He better go back there and fight for those students..He should demand they be given a free lunch…
I see where you are going and it is a valid point/question…
Can you afford, on one income, the home that you want to raise your children in? If you can’t afford to pay the mortgage and bills on one income in a two income household, you can’t afford the house. Why? What if one of you gets layed off, you will be off work for periods of time when you have your children, and the second income is the added insurance policy. Prior buying the house and having the children, bank as much as you can..skip the “fun” expenses, knowing that you are going to be investing that money in a home. Pay cash whenever possible. If you can’t pay the credit card off at the end of the month, you can’t afford what you bought..
When looking at homes, look at the schools..are you going to be happy with your child’s education? You really love the house but hate the schools? Bank on a private school or transportation to a charter school or school in another district.
The foreclosures are terrible for all except the new buyer..you can get a steal in some cases but do your homework and don’t be in a rush.
Work with a bank first and foremost. Research all the lenders that you are dealing with..go fixed on the mortgage but plan on the property taxes going up, therefore your payments rising(if you put the taxes into the mortgage).
There are very credible financial advisors/planners(I deal with Smith Barney) that can help you make the right decisions. Decisions not only on the purchase of your home, but savings plans for your financial future. I am assuming you are under the age of 30..the perfect time to sit down and start planning and making smart decisions for you and your coming family.
This will just be S-CHIP squared and cubed. The democrats will stuff this bail-out turkey with so many goodies, even Bush will be forced to veto it. That’s the whole point of the game. Then the Dems can whine, “You see! We told you!! He doesn’t care!!!” And then the Republicans will panic and the candidates will weep at the photo-ops. In a sense, there really isn’t any news here. The dynamics of the farce are set once again and it is pre-determined how it will play itself out.
New Hampshire handcount
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_o__080110_obama_clinton_3a_remar.htm
The Left is really in the dark.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/01/12/snows-astonishment-maher-suggests-gop-stole-nh-hillary
No new-news here!
In an election year when the presidency is in the offing, “everything-for-everybody” seems to be the mantra of both parties, with no mention of who or how all the goodies will be paid for; it’s not until the three years between presidential elections that we learn the bill comes due to us!
By the way: MM, please ask your new “best friend,” Joy Behar to tone down the Christian bashing. It’s very offensive – especially when kids and the elderly maybe watching.
Yes, the Democrats want HillaryCare, but if you think the Republican approach is the same thing, you missed the part about it being voluntary:
Equating the Democrat approach to the housing crisis with the Republican approach is like claiming that privately-run health care is the same as government-run health care. If you can’t distinguish between the two, you’re going to end up with HillaryCare by default.
Peejz:
The point I is was driving at is that we simply have no evidence that borrowers and lenders failed to follow your suggestions. We have anecdotes, but bear in mind that 99.9% of those anecdotes are selected and reported by the press. OK, that’s tautological.
Taking out a thirty-year loan is a risky activity. But so are a lot of sensible activities we engage in (e.g., driving on the interstate, starting a restaurant, buying stock). If engaging in one of these activities produced an adverse outcome, what would you say to someone who told you “You should have walked/kept your day job/bought muni bonds.”?
Six months ago, I didn’t hear anyone calling the borrowers foolish or the lenders greedy. What happened in that time span to drop the collective intelligence and virtue of the parties? Nothing. The housing market flattened and default rates ticked up. Who’s defaulting? The highest credit risks–exactly those who we’d expect to default. OK, that’s tautological too.
If we think it’s good policy to discourage the least qualified from entering the housing market, let’s eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.
Laree- when you go to link something as you did, copy the link to your browser, now highlight a word or phrase, such as New Hampshire handcount, and hit the link button..a window will open up for you to paste the link url in..click enter and now your link is in there properly..
The “American Dream” of doing for yourself and making it on your own, is gone. What made America great is now a thing of the past. Now, the gov’t will take care of you. Once they help you out, they will shortly begin to tell you what to do. The very sad part about that is the “cheering crowds”. Why try hard to make something of yourself, when you know “Mom & Dad” gov’t will be there to take care of you? The whole country will end up on “welfare”…the Soviet type of gov’t. Healthcare, gov’t style, and now you can take that “risk” for a home; gov’t has you covered. Buy that bigger plasma tv or 3rd car. Gov’t has you covered. Self-respect and self-esteem no longer important. One giant welfare state with “cheering crowds”. Thank you politicians for destroying a once great country!
I’m following you and btw, I saw this coming almost two years ago. The market got too high, great for a seller, but people that had no business getting loans did..disaster was written all over it, but it got no attention…
Where I don’t follow you is this:
The least qualified is a rather over generalization..Some people may be on the rebound from some bad debt and could very well be on the right financial path. There is also the other end of the spectrum..those that have the means to afford the mortgage, but extended themselves in piles of various debt..That being said, why should the tax be eliminated? Are those that defaulted the only ones using the tax credit? I highly doubt it.
One other point that I think is worth mentioning is that Hillary made a comment about construction business being down..I mean no offense to the construction workers, but for the past couple of years, these very people became rather snobby..they wouldn’t bid unless it was new construction, they turned down the home improvement jobs because it was below them..now they are scrambling to pick up that business and the reception is rather chilly..
Peejz:
By least qualified, I mean those with the lowest credit score and by definition the highest default risk. The hindsighters call these folks “those who bought more house than they could afford.”
The mortgage interest deduction encourages those on the margin to enter the housing market. Not all homeowners qualify; you have to borrow to benefit. If you self-finance (i.e., pay cash), you don’t benefit. And the more you borrow, the greater the deduction. Thus the deduction–at the margin–encourages borrowers to take on larger loans than they could afford without the deduction.
If Hillary’s concerned about the construction industry, it’s only because construction wages have flattened and by extension dues collected from unionized construction workers are flat.
I have one question because I have seen conflicting numbers on this default situation from the very beginning …perhaps somone here can help on this …
What is the actual percentage of the loans classified as “sub-prime” that are defaulting?
I have seen varying numbers from the reports indicating it is anywhere from a small percent to 1/2 or more …
If someone can find those numbers from a reliable source (not MSM) and post the link I would appreciate it as I think some of us are tending to look at ALL of these loans as being in or close to foreclosure … I personally do not think that is the case …
I have 2 daughters and their husbands that got these kinds of loans and are still handling the payments just fine because they didn’t rush into it with their eyes closed about the possiblities of their payments going up and were prepared for it when it happened …
I don’t believe it is fair to brush all those people that took advantage of the opportunity that presented itself to buy their own home with a broad claim of recklessness for doing so …
Waiting for some reliable numbers from somewhere …
“We’re going to put our hands
moneyin the pockets of hardworking Americanswho deserve it. That’s what I’m fighting for,”fixed
New Hampshire is going to do a hand recount of the primary votes this hasn’t happened since 1980.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_po/new_hampshire_recount_2
How about those who took a higher fixed rate mortgage locked in for decades because they were responsible – are they going to get any relief or a decreased interest rate? Of course not. Every single one of these politicians are jumping on this bandwagon for votes and votes only, knowing the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits. This is absolutely sickening.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
Two questions:
1. Would these be the same judges the Senate has not yet confirmed?
2. When did the role of judges change from enforcing contracts to re-writing them?
The biggest scam of these proposals is how the frauduently inflated housing market will get sustained, and WORSE!!, used by municipalities nationwide as justification for even higher property taxes.
Wait until these taxes start to pauperize people and there will be hell to pay.
So your telling me that because I did’nt slather myself in credit card debt, did’nt over extend myself in any credit debt and my score is low because I don’t buy thing’s on credit just cash that I am less qualified to get a loan than the ones who have.
C’mon, I went to buy a car and because I have never had a credit card or bought nothing on credit in my entire life thay wanted to penalize me because “you don’t have bad credit you just don’t have any credit” with a higher interest rate, for the love of pete my Dad had to cosign my loan and when I payed it off in 2 year’s instead of 5 they wanted to penalize me for that, I told them I was’nt paying the penalty and they told me I had to if I wanted the title, I fought these a-holes for 6 month’s and apparently they got more tired of messing with me than I got messing with them and sent me the title in the mail and left my credit in good standing. Because of this now I won’t borrow money from a bank I just save my pennies and buy used.
Well mercy me. Obama has at least one smart advisor.
Blind_Mule:
I’m sorry for your plight, but look at it from the lender’s perspective. They’re the ones putting their cash at risk. Lenders look for borrowers with a proven history of repaying their debts–not necessarily those who have run up the highest debts.
The lenders are just applying the Golden Rule: He that holds the gold makes the rules.
Your strategy of saving and buying used makes a lot sense. I’ll bet that being debt-free lets you sleep easy.
This is nothing more than Democrats making promises, they don’t intend to keep…Even IF they could.
My eyes are beginning to itch, from the wool.
Anyone seen my Visine?
No plight and no reason to be sorry, It can be challenging some times though, but thank God I usally can come out smelling like a rose. Being debt free is not actually a true statement you still have to have utilities, groceries, gas etc… every month so I do consider that debt or I quess it could just be considered the cost of living, but I’m working on the utility one too.
I get your point though I’m just thinking that the guy that does’nt fall into the credit trap get’s screwed buy the bank’s.
So so true.
People, wake up and smell the coffee: if the government won’t allow you to fail, neither will they allow you to succeed. Be very afraid of bailouts.
TexasTiger, have these 2 politicians ever heard of the Contracts Clause in the Constitution, or the 10th amendment? I suppose not. Anyway, doesn’t matter, these days. It’s for the poor and the children, which overrides any law on the books.
Thats why we were given a Republic to keep in good order and why liberals (of any party affiliation) should never be allowed in charge.
#26 DesertLover, The vast majority of subprime borrowers have not defaulted. I don’t have the numbers because they keep changing and unfortunately, if nothing is done, they will snowball.
A surplus of homes on the market causes prices to drop. When prices drop more homeowners become upsidedown in their mortgages and now owe more than their homes are worth. Some decide to just walk away. This causes other houses in the neighborhood to drop in value a little more. This downward trend also causes investors to become skiddish and contributes to the snowball effect.
But subprime lenders and borrowers are not the only ones affected by this. All homes lose value and all homeowners lose some equity. Believe it or not, sometimes even responsible people have to move because of marriages, divorces, job changes, etc. If they can’t sell their home for what they owe, they become victims just as much as anyone else.
Market forces will eventually make the necessary corrections, but in the meantime, panic can increase the snowball effect and cause the problem to become worse than it needs to be. It’s this panic that government policy can and should do something about.
What baffles me are the people who would gladly give up a big chunk of the equity in their homes rather than give up even a few pennies of tax money. I suppose they would also like to go back to the days when banks failures were common rather than pay a few pennies to the government to guarantee the first $100,000 of their savings.
Ask anyone who lived through the Great Depression if they would like to go back to the good old days of “hands off” government policy. I’m sure no “responsible” people were hurt in the making of the Great Depression. I’m also sure that FDR being elected to four terms as president had nothing to do with the “suck it up” attitude of the Hoover administration. I’m afraid that so many have forgotten the past that we are doomed to repeat it.
Papa Louie
Thanks for letting me know I didn’t just dream about the defaults being fewer than the MSM would like people to believe to strengthen their criticism of everything … I know the numbers keep changing … so it is hard to keep up with a true reflection of what is going on in this area …
I have no disagreement with your premise about values dropping for everyone in the scheme of things … but if you stop the defaults on these loans through some reasonable, non-taxpayer funded approaches (I think my #11 could be a part of that though obviously not the only answer) then the drop is not as drastic … (fewer defaults means fewer homes on the market which generally keeps values higher) … I think that then most everyone gets through the problem with less damage …
My kids treated their payments as if they were already higher and put the difference in a separate “rainy day” savings account … I realize many could not do that … but they did sacrifice some luxuries and family trips to stay true to the savings plan and it is paying off now …
Hmmmm, they always scream “tax cuts for the rich” & yet want to bail out home owners… HEY you Dems, hows about some Federal relief for the struggling renters?
That’s 2 to 3 Million plus voters in NYC alone.
Where in the Constitution is it written that a role of the federal government is to guarantee the value of every citizen’s assets?
Equity is the market value of one’s home less the remaining mortgage debt. How does the government protect homeowner’s equity without manipulating the market value of homes or absolving borrower’s of their debts? Splain, please.
Bad if you want to sell now, great if you’re a young family looking to move out of your cramped apartment and want to buy now. Whose interest should prevail? Buyer or sellers?
All evidence points to the fact that it was government policies (e.g., passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and restrictive monetary policies) that created and prolonged the Great Depression.
Besides, my parents lived through the depression and they say laissez-faire works for them. Milton Friedman probably felt the same way.
good thing there are hard-working RICH people to pay for all this largesse.
I hope you appreciate the fact that I’m going to have to pay for your mortgage. I hope you learn (with my money) that you can’t have it all now; that sometimes you have to save and live in less than desirable quarters to eventually get what you want and can afford. I hope you learn (with my money) to read and speak English. This is America where you need to be able to read legal documents even if you are “undocumented”. I hope you learn (with my money) that being on the public dole due to poor choices you have made doesn’t result in pity by those of us who pay your bills AND our own.
To the unscrupulous and greedy lenders who knew what they were doing, I hope your asses are sued into oblivion.
BrooklynRed, I’ve got a better idea. How about bailing out all the people in credit card debt? That would cover homeowners and renters. Gee, think of all the votes and “cheering crowds” that would bring!! Why stop at mortgages? Just submit your bills to Obama, and let the gov’t pay for them, preferably before my wife’s birthday, so I could spend more, please.
Any time you’ve got a politicians telling people we’re going to help those that “deserve it”, I begin wondering when the conscripts will coming around the towns and villages and asking those who don’t deserve to wear a PATCH on their arm…
Meatpie #5,
I don’t often make a comment like this but I think you are out of line and made a comment that is beneath you. There are a lot of factors that go into hospital pricing and they are the responsibility of the CFO not the administrator. Pick on Obama he is a legitimate target, his wife is not.
That said I agree with you about Obama, when has he had a real job or financial struggles like the rest of us? Same with Shrillery
Anyone know how many actual tax payers there are in the US? Hitlery wants to spend 110 Billion on this? How much is this going to cost me?
“We’re going to put money in the pockets of hardworking Americans who deserve it. That’s what I’m fighting for,” Obama told hotel and restaurant workers…
Crank up the printing presses, paper and electronic! Hyperinflation, here we come!
TexasTiger said:
There are other ways than handouts or bailouts that the government can use to stop the bleeding and restore confidence in the markets. It’s the panic that causes the most damage and makes people overreact.
I support the voluntary measures that President Bush and other Republicans have begun working out with lenders. Allowing homeowners more flexibility in working out their problems before evicting them helps slow the snowball down just a little bit. This can help both the lender and the borrower in the long run.
Fed money policy also affects the markets and has been doing so for many years. When rates go up some people benefit and others are hurt. That doesn’t mean adjustments should never be made. It means they should be made carefully in an attempt to do more good than harm.
I’m curious; were your parents part of the small minority who voted against FDR all four times? When FDR took office in 1933, most banks had shut down, and 13 million people were without jobs. Yes, laissez-faire was working quite nicely.
Your parents must have really hated FDR’s New Deal, including his TVA and WPA programs to create jobs, his bank reforms, and The Social Security Act that provided unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and government old-age pensions to workers. I suppose they refused to take even a dime of their Social Security pensions.
I’m not saying I like everything FDR did. He went overboard on spending. But he did help restore confidence in the market place and the people loved him. When was the last time you or your parents lost money because of a run on the bank?
Just read that Obama’s campaign jet clipped a parked plane as it was taxiing at Chicago Midwat.
Clearly we have a national crisis in air safety that can only be solved by massive cash infusions by to Gulfstream owners. So hike my taxes now so we can end this crisis!
TexasTiger:
To say that both lenders and borrowers didn’t instinctually know that they were playing with fire (especially with these sub-prime and ARM loans) is like me saying that if I eat anything I want (including that yummy fudge sundae) I don’t have to work out to burn those calories. My husband and I shopped around for homes in Colorado and I saw those prices and they smelled fishy.
The sales agent at one development (this is the construction company selling the home too…no conflict of interest there) told me it would be super easy (and affordable) to buy a house, no money down. I instinctually knew that was not a sound fiscal decision for my family…if I can make that decision, why can’t others? What made me unique? Or what made the
“victims” gullible? CHOICES and GREED. Sure, I want a house I don’t want to pay for but does that mean I’ll buy? Ummm….you know the answer, right?
I think the housing market got hot too fast and wasn’t priced accurately. There was a lot of speculation involved in this market too, but nobody is going after the speculators. What sticks in my craw more is that many good, hard-working people will have to bail out the irresponsible consumers and lenders. Let’s face it…this is no longer Monday morning quarterbacking going on because many other analysts and experts were saying something wasn’t right.
Another aspect of homeownership I despise (and I’m not a homeowner) is why the hell is the state or town you live in entitled to any piece of the home you bought, maintained, and invested in? Where I live, I’m hearing reports that elderly folks to the very young cannot even pay their damn taxes because the assessment has not caught up with the actual valuation of their homes. Now they’re paying thousands of dollars in property taxes that the state/town/city you live in gets to collect and pocket and is not entitled to (unless they’re helping with the upkeep and not already charging you for water, gas, power, trash, sewage… those are what I already pay as a renter). Now, that’s what I find pretty pathetic.
Where I live now (Virginia) I see the state and local towns/cities with their hands out taking people’s money for everything and not just “property taxes.” How do you explain why the same kind of house is assessed in one state for $250,000 and in anther it’s $350-$400k? Where’s the role in the local assessor in all this nonsense?
It was all well and good when many homeowners were patting themselves on the back when their homes were appreciating out of the stratosphere like mad and therefore they could use the homes as convenient ATMS’s. Now, the market has hit rock bottom (or getting there), it’s sunk in that you treat a home for what it really is, a HOME, not just an investment, and plan for it accordingly (+ the taxes), or you might as well not buy one in the first place.
Virginia, like other states, also like to charge its citizens a “garage fee” otherwise known as a personal property tax just to drive my car in their state. Where’s the fairness in that? When does the taxation end and the revolt begin?
People of all political bents/views really need to wise up! We’re already taxed to the gills and when instances like the sub-prime fiasco arise, people stll have their hand out taking and takig and taking. My elderly in-laws are paying 3,000 dollars in property taxes for a 50-60 year old house in the NYC suburb area and that’s ridiculous. Once you buy a house, it’s your house, in the good and the bad times, but it seems like even the state whether it be New York, CA, or VA wants a piece of it. When voters start looking at the voting records regarding taxes for some of their local/state politicians, maybe we’ll actually see changes. NOT! That would be real consumer empowerment and research at work.
One further note: my heart really “bleeds” for those poor, poor construction companies now not as busy as they once were, putting their illegal immigrants to work. Too bad. Less deadbeats sucking off the public, taxpayer trough.
There was a time (for you younguns) when, the first thing you did after marriage and hs/college, was to buy a house. 1 worked and the other stayed home…and that’s with kids. It was perfectly natural to buy one. Housing was fairly inexpensive and people worked hard and had higher morals than they do today. Raising a family came first; not 2nd or 3rd priority in “living one’s own life”. Things changed with the 60s. Now, we need bailouts. For the first time in our history, having a house is not the norm.