Michelle Malkin » Obama proposes 90-day foreclosure moratorium

Obama proposes 90-day foreclosure moratorium — against it before he was for it

By Michelle Malkin • October 13, 2008 04:40 PM

McCain wants to buy up individual mortgages and play loan servicer-in-chief for homeowners underwater. Obama wants to put a 90-day freeze on foreclosures and prolong the pain for short-term political gain.

Pander twin powers, activate:

Democrat Barack Obama proposed more immediate steps Monday to heal the nation’s ailing economy, including a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures at some banks and a two-year tax break for businesses that create new jobs…

…Obama proposed Monday that banks participating in the federal bailout should temporarily postpone foreclosures for families making good-faith efforts to pay their mortgage.

“We need to give people the breathing room they need to get back on their feet,” he said, adding that families living beyond their means share some of the responsibility.

“Part of the reason this crisis occurred, if we’re honest with ourselves, is that everyone was living beyond their means — from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street,” Obama said.

McCain opposes a temporary foreclosure moratorium and instead wants to focus on policies that would keep homeowners from ever facing foreclosure, said economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Why stop at 90 days, Barry?

Your old friends at ACORN demand a one-year foreclosure moratorium.

Why not two years or three or five?

And hey, why stop at foreclosure moratoriums?

How about a rent moratorium for idiots like me who stayed out of the housing market and took a pass on indulging on an overpriced McMansion with no money down and an ARM?

All together now: Dude, where’s our bailout?

***

Hillary Clinton first proposed a foreclosure moratorium last January.

The White House followed suit a month later.

And now, Obama — who was against it before he was for it. Here’s what he said eight short months ago:

Clinton’s solution is a 90-day moratorium for foreclosures on sub-prime occupied homes, and a five-year rate freeze on sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages. The Bush administration has already responded with a 30-day cooling period on foreclosures; Clinton and her aides insist a longer freeze is essential for stabilizing a precarious situation for homeowners.

But according to some economists and officials grappling with the crisis, her proposal, which also offers a $30-billion foreclosure fund that is triple the size of Obama’s, might only prolong the agony for homeowners.

“A 90-day freeze is fine for what it is, but what happens on the 91st day?” Rokakis asked. “Why not a year? Or longer?”

In San Antonio on Tuesday, Obama said that Clinton’s foreclosure freeze was potentially “disastrous,” rewarding “people who made this problem worse” by benefiting banks that profit from high mortgage rates.

A “blanket freeze,” Obama added, might “drive rates through the roof for those trying to buy or refinance. Experts say the value of homes will fall even more, and even more families could face foreclosure.”

God save us from bipartisanship.

***

Commenter AlohaGuy: “You forgot to mention Michelle, that Obama wants you to be able to borrow from your retirement account with no penalty, so eventually we can all bail out the people who spend their reitrement accounts of bad mortgages…There is no end to it.”

Posted in: ACORN Watch, Subprime crisis

Printer Friendly

comments (106)

trackbacks (10)

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

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#497833

On October 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am, sonofdy said:

Still trying to figure out how Obama plans to cut taxes to 95% of the people when only 60% pay any taxes. This equates to an INCREASED tax rebate for 40% of the people with tax increase on only 5% of the people.

Plus 1 trillion in new spending, above what is already being spent. All paid for by taxing 5% of the people and a slow draw down from Iraq?
#497835

On October 14th, 2008 at 9:24 am, dan708 said:

I hate to say it, but I see a MASSIVE tax increase coming, regardless of who we elect president. Otherwise, we are looking at a trillion-dollar deficit for FY 2009.
#497846

On October 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am, TMoney said:

OT….jubilation riots if he wins – vis a vis pro sport teams. Anger riots if he loses?

What do you reckon?
#497874

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:03 am, legendx3 said:

i never could understand how the germans would let HITLER take power i am now worried that i’m seeing it here and now
#497875

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:04 am, happyscrapper said:

On October 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm, nyc123me said:
And what happens down the line when these idiots decide to retire? Oops, not enough money in the 401K, I guess ONCE AGAIN, responsible citizens will have to pay the price.

I thought about that as soon as I heard Obama say out of one side of his mouth, “We encourage you to save your money and use it responsibly.” Then, almost immediately after that, he made the comment about the 401K…to allow you to withdraw up to $10,000 from your 401K without penalty. Which is it, Obama, responsible saving, or pulling money out of your retirement savings? This guy is a complete idiot. Will McCain make the case tomorrow night? He’d better!
#497883

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:10 am, happyscrapper said:

On October 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pm, feebiebabe said:
OR proof of citizenship, employment, etc.

Well, Barack didn’t have to prove his citizenship to run for President of the U.S., so why should they need it to get a house?
#497886

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:14 am, happyscrapper said:

By the way, if Barack wants to give tax breaks to corporations, who the heck is left to tax? Who is going to support the other 95% of the American people? You know, the people who can’t make it on their own and need the redistribution of wealth. I think he was taking so much flack for what he said to that plumber, that he had to backtrack and offer tax breaks for small businesses. Larger corporations are still going to pay and pay and pay. That is the way I read it. But I am occasionally wrong!
#497891

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am, Gorebot said:

Ahh, “good-faith efforts”.

There it is, folks! The critical-nexus weasal word-hole through which all politicians try to sneak.

And just who, Herr Obama, will be the low-level Guvmint bureaucrat who will magically devine which mortgagers are acting in “good faith”, and which ones are not?

How will our all-beneficient, omniscient Guvmint discriminate one from the other?

Whoops, there’s that word “discriminate”! Can’t do that! Gotta let everyone in the Goody-Bandwagon.

Government CAN’T FIX THE LEAKY FAUCET IN EVERYONE’S LIFE, Herr Obama.

And you’re gonna win because the American electorate is too stupid to figure our your scam, or anyone else’s.
#497892

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am, happyscrapper said:

I heard Barack say that “consumers run the economy” If anyone thinks Barack understands economy, just listen to statement like that! Where does he think consumers come from? If the businesses can’t afford to hire because of extremely high taxes, they will lay off workers. Who are the consumers? People who have jobs and actually earn money. Geez!
#497899

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am, dan708 said:

Standards – if only, if only.
If only the banking industry had been allowed to stick to tried-and-true standards, rather than having the govt. FORCE them to accept borrowers who couldn’t afford their loans.
But Obama and his party are all about having NO STANDARDS ON ANYTHING! Standards are not PC; they’re RAAAACIST! And yet, American voters are prepared to give total power to the party that helped create this mess with the Community Reinvestment Act. God Save Us from ourselves!
#497907

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am, happyscrapper said:

On October 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am, TMoney said:
OT….jubilation riots if he wins – vis a vis pro sport teams. Anger riots if he loses?

What do you reckon?

I believe McCain will win this election. I think the polls are screwy and tilted toward Obama. The media is in the tank for him, so I would not be surprised to hear the polls are also in the tank. Don’t pay attention to them. I believe that people will get into the voting booth and realize Obama is too risky. Oh, not everyone, of course. We know there are plenty of people who have bought into his lunacy. But I still have faith that the majority of Americans still have a brain. Also, more and more is coming out about Obama, and that information WILL leak out, in spite of the media blackout on anything negative about their savior.
#497915

On October 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am, happyscrapper said:

Oh, and about the media…There is no way for this democracy to survive unless the media reports the actual news, fair and balanced. Something needs to happen in that regard. Otherwise, we will have half the country watching FOX News and listening to Rush, and the other half watching the msm and listening exclusively to Air America or whatever radical left station that happens to be on. This country is already divided so badly, if we never hear the other side of anything, we are lost.