Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Bad Economic News, Yet Here Comes ANOTHER Wall Street Bail Out

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Bad Economic News, Yet Here Comes ANOTHER Wall Street Bail Out

    More Bad Economic News, Yet Here Comes ANOTHER Wall Street Bail Out

    Americans may be extremely upset about Wall Street bailouts, but President Obama isn't listening. Come September 7, President Obama will have Wall Street investment banks lining up for another huge bailout. But such a bailout will do little to stimulate the housing market and offset the latest 27.2 percent plunge in existing home sales.

    The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will offer financial institutions holding mortgages worth more than the value of the houses, so-called "underwater" mortgages, a guarantee on 90 percent of the mortgage value if the institution will write-off 10 percent of the mortgage. These risky mortgages have been bought up by Wall Street investment banks at may be 30, 40 or 50 cents on the dollar. The government now says that if the holder takes 10 percent off the mortgage, the government will guarantee 90 percent of the mortgage. So they may have bought a $400,000 mortgage for $200,000. If the mortgage holder agrees to write-off $40,000, the government will guarantee the mortgage for $360,000.

    What was once a mortgage worth $200,000 to the investment bank is now worth $360,000 that they can turn around and sell for that tomorrow. And now, let's do the math. You, the taxpayer, have just given these Wall Street investment firms $160,000!

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that up to 1.5 million home mortgages will be bailed out. The write-offs are estimated to cost up to $35 billion (averaging $23,500 per home), and the benefits to the mortgage holders will likely be much larger, with taxpayers being on the hook to pick up the defaults.

    And, as you can see, it is really the "greedy" Republicans who Mr. Obama frequently assures us are in the pockets of Wall Street. There is no reason for government to be giving a single dime to these Wall Street financial institutions. The mortgages that they bought reflect the risk associated with them. The original mortgage holders have long ago absorbed the losses from these bad loans.


    The Obama program is also going to create massive unfair wealth transfers across Americans. Why is the government giving at least a 10 percent write-off to people whose homes are underwater? Marking down a $400,000 mortgage by 10% is $40,000. That is a lot of money. Why do people in California, Nevada and Florida get these pay-offs? But not people in Texas whose home values didn't fall that much? Why do people who bought houses recently get all this money, but not people who have lived in the same house for 15 years and whose houses are not underwater?

    Many people receiving this money are the very ones who the government forced banks to lend money to that lead to all the financial problems. Poor minorities who couldn't afford to put down money on their homes, who took out a mortgage equal to 100 percent of the value of their home, are the ones most likely to have their homes underwater.

    To make matters even worse, the many responsible homeowners are being excluded from these windfalls.

    Suppose that you couldn't afford your home and you didn't want to default, so you did the responsible thing and rented out the home and moved into a smaller apartment. Guess what. You aren't eligible for this write-off.

    Another billion dollars has been set aside for unemployed homeowners who stay in their homes, not unemployed homeowners who tried to cut back on expenses by renting out the houses that they couldn't afford.

    If you want to stimulate housing, the key is to increase the future returns to owning a home, not just to hand out windfall gains to those who have made decisions in the past. Some of the money will to those who made unwise decisions in the past, but much more of the money will go to investment bankers who bought the mortgages that they hold at a discount. In any case, government policies caused housing to be over built in the past, and Washington should concentrate on making investment in general more profitable by letting people keep more of the money that they make, not in helping what industry by taking money from other places in the economy.

    Americans have a plea for our president and the Democrats in Congress: Stop these massive redistributions of wealth. Stop the Washington bailout out of the auto industry and teaches unions, of states that haven't controlled spending, and people in certain other favored industries. -- The country's debt keeps soaring as these redistributions keep getting bigger. How these favored groups get chose for government largesse seems solely based on whether they are part of Democrats' constituencies. That isn't a good enough reason for them to reap these massive windfalls.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jamaicanman View Post
    More Bad Economic News, Yet Here Comes ANOTHER Wall Street Bail Out

    Americans may be extremely upset about Wall Street bailouts, but President Obama isn't listening. Come September 7, President Obama will have Wall Street investment banks lining up for another huge bailout. But such a bailout will do little to stimulate the housing market and offset the latest 27.2 percent plunge in existing home sales.

    The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will offer financial institutions holding mortgages worth more than the value of the houses, so-called "underwater" mortgages, a guarantee on 90 percent of the mortgage value if the institution will write-off 10 percent of the mortgage. These risky mortgages have been bought up by Wall Street investment banks at may be 30, 40 or 50 cents on the dollar. The government now says that if the holder takes 10 percent off the mortgage, the government will guarantee 90 percent of the mortgage. So they may have bought a $400,000 mortgage for $200,000. If the mortgage holder agrees to write-off $40,000, the government will guarantee the mortgage for $360,000.

    What was once a mortgage worth $200,000 to the investment bank is now worth $360,000 that they can turn around and sell for that tomorrow. And now, let's do the math. You, the taxpayer, have just given these Wall Street investment firms $160,000!

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that up to 1.5 million home mortgages will be bailed out. The write-offs are estimated to cost up to $35 billion (averaging $23,500 per home), and the benefits to the mortgage holders will likely be much larger, with taxpayers being on the hook to pick up the defaults.

    And, as you can see, it is really the "greedy" Republicans who Mr. Obama frequently assures us are in the pockets of Wall Street. There is no reason for government to be giving a single dime to these Wall Street financial institutions. The mortgages that they bought reflect the risk associated with them. The original mortgage holders have long ago absorbed the losses from these bad loans.


    The Obama program is also going to create massive unfair wealth transfers across Americans. Why is the government giving at least a 10 percent write-off to people whose homes are underwater? Marking down a $400,000 mortgage by 10% is $40,000. That is a lot of money. Why do people in California, Nevada and Florida get these pay-offs? But not people in Texas whose home values didn't fall that much? Why do people who bought houses recently get all this money, but not people who have lived in the same house for 15 years and whose houses are not underwater?

    Many people receiving this money are the very ones who the government forced banks to lend money to that lead to all the financial problems. Poor minorities who couldn't afford to put down money on their homes, who took out a mortgage equal to 100 percent of the value of their home, are the ones most likely to have their homes underwater.

    To make matters even worse, the many responsible homeowners are being excluded from these windfalls.

    Suppose that you couldn't afford your home and you didn't want to default, so you did the responsible thing and rented out the home and moved into a smaller apartment. Guess what. You aren't eligible for this write-off.

    Another billion dollars has been set aside for unemployed homeowners who stay in their homes, not unemployed homeowners who tried to cut back on expenses by renting out the houses that they couldn't afford.

    If you want to stimulate housing, the key is to increase the future returns to owning a home, not just to hand out windfall gains to those who have made decisions in the past. Some of the money will to those who made unwise decisions in the past, but much more of the money will go to investment bankers who bought the mortgages that they hold at a discount. In any case, government policies caused housing to be over built in the past, and Washington should concentrate on making investment in general more profitable by letting people keep more of the money that they make, not in helping what industry by taking money from other places in the economy.

    Americans have a plea for our president and the Democrats in Congress: Stop these massive redistributions of wealth. Stop the Washington bailout out of the auto industry and teaches unions, of states that haven't controlled spending, and people in certain other favored industries. -- The country's debt keeps soaring as these redistributions keep getting bigger. How these favored groups get chose for government largesse seems solely based on whether they are part of Democrats' constituencies. That isn't a good enough reason for them to reap these massive windfalls.
    hmmmm.. i woould be interested to see the author of this non partisan, no agenda or slant article
    Fire BAS and Hache Man. Don't forget Wayne1218 is a piece of garbage. Fest zit a total fraud still talks about me. You Trump voters tired of winning yet? Lmao

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by vitterd View Post
      hmmmm.. i woould be interested to see the author of this non partisan, no agenda or slant article
      Would the author change the details? Or is it back to the "attack the messenger" campaign when you can't run on facts?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jamaicanman View Post
        Would the author change the details? Or is it back to the "attack the messenger" campaign when you can't run on facts?
        as u should know with politics u can spin the numbers alot of ways... usually u can tell which way the spin will go by the author or source... i will assume thats why its not posted
        Fire BAS and Hache Man. Don't forget Wayne1218 is a piece of garbage. Fest zit a total fraud still talks about me. You Trump voters tired of winning yet? Lmao

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by vitterd View Post
          as u should know with politics u can spin the numbers alot of ways... usually u can tell which way the spin will go by the author or source... i will assume thats why its not posted
          Ok, then please cite a source to refute the mentioned numbers. Thanks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jamaicanman View Post
            Ok, then please cite a source to refute the mentioned numbers. Thanks.
            the numbers are all estimates... its another opinion hit piece... do i really need to go searching to refute estimates about programs that havent even happened yet.... who was the author and where did u get the article from... i know u can ask questions but can u answer this one
            Fire BAS and Hache Man. Don't forget Wayne1218 is a piece of garbage. Fest zit a total fraud still talks about me. You Trump voters tired of winning yet? Lmao

            Comment


            • #7
              FOXNews.com - More Bad Economic News, Yet Here Comes ANOTHER Wall Street Bailout

              Comment


              • #8
                lmao... thx... another jman edited cut/paste...classic...the editing part was website and author...at least now i know why he cut that out
                Fire BAS and Hache Man. Don't forget Wayne1218 is a piece of garbage. Fest zit a total fraud still talks about me. You Trump voters tired of winning yet? Lmao

                Comment


                • #9
                  the author of this article has a book out called "more guns, less crimes"... lol.. opinion article for fox news... i wonder what side he will fall on
                  Fire BAS and Hache Man. Don't forget Wayne1218 is a piece of garbage. Fest zit a total fraud still talks about me. You Trump voters tired of winning yet? Lmao

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by vitterd View Post
                    lmao... thx... another jman edited cut/paste...classic...the editing part was website and author...at least now i know why he cut that out
                    Left out b/c everyone knows that you will attack the source when you can't compete on the facts. So I ask again, what in there is inaccurate?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jamaicanman View Post
                      Left out b/c everyone knows that you will attack the source when you can't compete on the facts. So I ask again, what in there is inaccurate?
                      ummmm... in case u didnt notice this was an opinion piece...how can i refute his opinion... i dont agree with his speculations...and u didnt post the source... because it was... as always when u post an article a right wing hit piece
                      Fire BAS and Hache Man. Don't forget Wayne1218 is a piece of garbage. Fest zit a total fraud still talks about me. You Trump voters tired of winning yet? Lmao

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by vitterd View Post
                        ummmm... in case u didnt notice this was an opinion piece...how can i refute his opinion... i dont agree with his speculations...and u didnt post the source... because it was... as always when u post an article a right wing hit piece
                        It was actually a link from Google news. What speculations don;t you agree with?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jamaicanman View Post
                          It was actually a link from Google news. What speculations don;t you agree with?
                          massive unfair wealth transfers? seriously?... u can say it was a link from anywhere. u got it off of bias fox news opinion portion...what do u think he is gonna say about obama and his policies.read up on this author.. he is a far right conservative ....thats the only articles u post though

                          i guess u woould be okay if i started posting things from the huffington post... i bet the source would matter then huh?
                          Fire BAS and Hache Man. Don't forget Wayne1218 is a piece of garbage. Fest zit a total fraud still talks about me. You Trump voters tired of winning yet? Lmao

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by vitterd View Post
                            massive unfair wealth transfers? seriously?... u can say it was a link from anywhere. u got it off of bias fox news opinion portion...what do u think he is gonna say about obama and his policies.read up on this author.. he is a far right conservative ....thats the only articles u post though

                            i guess u woould be okay if i started posting things from the huffington post... i bet the source would matter then huh?
                            Duh, the site owner posts directly from Huf post. Does it change any facts in articles? Just stop while you are ahead and admit you know zippo about the FHA, lending practices or for that matter, housing problems. Better to be a thought a fool then open your mouth and confirm.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jamaicanman View Post
                              Duh, the site owner posts directly from Huf post. Does it change any facts in articles? Just stop while you are ahead and admit you know zippo about the FHA, lending practices or for that matter, housing problems. Better to be a thought a fool then open your mouth and confirm.
                              This guy is just another moronic blogger who thinks he knows what may or may not happen. His 'post' is chalked full of grammatical errors and it's a lot of conjecture. I seriously doubt that a financial institution that buys a mortgage for $200,000 that was worth $400,000, will be guaranteed $160,000 after subtracting the 10%. And why should we have to prove what this Neocon blogger is saying is true? It's up to you to prove all his conjecture is factual. Post something credible about the issue...




                              Below is a story from the Associated Press. A slightly more credible source than Neocon Blogger.


                              PHOENIX — Seeking to tackle “a crisis unlike any we’ve ever known,” President Barack Obama unveiled an ambitious $75 billion plan Wednesday to keep as many as 9 million Americans from losing their homes to foreclosure.

                              Announcing the plan in Arizona — a state especially hard hit by the housing crunch — Obama said that turning around the battered economy requires stemming the continuing tide of foreclosures. The housing crisis that began last year set many other factors in motion and helped lead to the current, widening recession.

                              “In the end, all of us are paying a price for this home mortgage crisis,” Obama said at a high school outside Phoenix. “And all of us will pay an even steeper price if we allow this crisis to deepen.”

                              But while talking in broad strokes about the importance of the issue to the economy as a whole, the president took care not to miss the pain that the housing problems are causing in individual families

                              “The American Dream is being tested by a home mortgage crisis that not only threatens the stability of our economy but also the stability of families and neighborhoods,” he said. “While this crisis is vast, it begins just one house and one family at a time.”

                              More expensive than expected, Obama’s plan aims to keep between 7 million and 9 million people from foreclosure. Of the nearly 52 million U.S. homeowners with a mortgage, about 13.8 million, or nearly 27 percent, owe more on their mortgage than their house is now worth, according to Moody’s Economy.com.

                              Headlining Obama’s plan is a $75 billion Homeowner Stability Initiative, which would provide a set of incentives to mortgage lenders in an effort to convince them to help up to 4 million borrowers on the verge of foreclosure. The goal: cut monthly mortgage payments to sustainable levels, defined as no more than 31 percent of a homeowners income. Funding would come from the $700 billion financial industry bailout passed by Congress last fall.

                              Another key component would specifically help those said to be “under water” — with dwellings whose market value have sunk below the principal still owed on the mortgages. Such mortgages have traditionally been almost impossible to refinance. But the White House said its program will help 4 million to 5 million families do just that — if their mortgages are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

                              Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan stressed that homeowners don’t need to be delinquent in order to get help.

                              “This is necessary policy. It’s smart economics. And it’s just and fair,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters.

                              Asked why the cost had jumped to $75 billion from initial talk of a $50 billion effort, Geithner said, “We think that’s necessary to make a program like this work.”

                              And he said relief would be almost instantaneous, basically as soon as rules are published March 4. “You’ll start to see the effects quite quickly”, Geithner said.

                              Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, said previous efforts had largely flopped. “We’ve not attacked the problem at the core,” she told reporters. “We are woefully behind the curve.”

                              The biggest players in the mortgage industry already had halted foreclosures pending Obama’s announcement.

                              “The plan I’m announcing focuses on rescuing families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly,” Obama said. “It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans.”

                              He issued a warning as well: “All of us must learn to live within our means again.”

                              He said the plan will not help those who took risky bets by buying homes to sell them, not live in them, or dishonest lenders who distorted facts for naive buyers, or buyers who signed on for loans they knew they could not afford.

                              “This plan will not save every home,” Obama said.

                              In tandem with the foreclosure plan, the Treasury Department announced it would double the size of its lifeline to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, seeking to bolster confidence in the mortgage giants effectively taken over by the government last fall. The government said it would absorb up to $200 billion in losses at each company, by using money Congress set aside last year, and will continue purchasing mortgage-backed securities from them.
                              [email protected]

                              I'm just here so I won't get fined....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X