5-Year mortgage rates to be frozen?

[Blackflag]

What a fucking farce.



:mad2:

[DrMaddVibe]

Cradle to grave

[DrMaddVibe]

Cradle to grave

[BITEYOASS]

How ironic, all this time the GOP is railing against funding public health and welfare programs, yet when their businesses go under its: WAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! LOWER THE INTEREST RATES AND SUBSIDIZE US!!! Fuck it, it's either Ron Paul or any democratic candidate who isn't Hillary for right now. :mad:

[BITEYOASS]

Besides, most of the forclosures were due to a shitload of houseflippers who thought it was gonna be a never ending boom. Especially in the midwestern rust belt cities, because there was never an influx of population when these record home sales were taking place.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Cradle to grave

:rolleyes:

You really are an idiot.

For starters, moron, this was a REPUBLICAN Administrations "plan"

Second, according to the REPUBLICAN Sec. of Treasury no goverment funds would be at risk.

This Crisis happened under a REPUBLICAN Administration's watch.


On the bright side, your double-wide will probably remain safe for you and Mrs. Jenny Craig

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BITEYOASS
Besides, most of the forclosures were due to a shitload of houseflippers

This "plan" only applies to those who LIVE in their homes.

Ways around that? sure.

No plans are perfect, or fraud-proof.

Especially when you're dealing with professional criminals like BushCO

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
What a fucking farce.



:mad2:

Just out of curiosity, what's your beef with it?

You don't give a shit about most other issues today.

Why does this one make your panties bunch so?



:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

What the Mortgage Bailout Means For You
As the Bush Administration unveils its plan to help homeowners, we look at the proposal's details


On Dec. 6, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, with the support of President George W. Bush, unveiled a plan to aid certain homeowners who face the prospect of higher mortgage rates in the next few years. Paulson worked with banks and other mortgage companies to develop the initiative, and thanked them for their involvement. "We have worked through an evolving process to help minimize the impact of the housing downturn on homeowners, neighborhoods and the U.S. economy," he said. While the plan is ambitious and is designed to bring stability to the shaken economy, it will affect only a narrow slice of homeowners in the U.S. "This is not a silver bullet," said Paulson. Here are some answers to questions you may have.

Can you get your mortgage payments lowered because of the bailout?

It depends. If you've got an adjustable-rate mortgage, you may qualify under certain conditions. If you've got a standard mortgage with a fixed interest rate, you're not affected.

Which adjustable-rate mortgage holders are affected?

Only a small group. To qualify, you need to have received your loan sometime between Jan. 1, 2005 and July 31, 2007, and you need to be facing a reset of your interest rate sometime between Jan. 1, 2008 and July 31, 2010. If you're within this range, you may be eligible to have your interest rate frozen, so you can keep your current, lower rate for five years.

Who qualifies within that range?

The bailout is really designed for homeowners who could run into trouble if their mortgage payments are raised sharply and face the prospect of losing their homes. If you're well enough off that you can afford the higher mortgage payments after a reset, you won't qualify. And if you're in bad enough shape that you can't handle the current low interest rate, you won't qualify. For example, if you've already fallen behind on your mortgage payments, you're not eligible for the rate freeze.

Do you need to live in your home to qualify?

Yes. The plan excludes people who don't live in the homes for which they have mortgages so that speculators can't benefit.

Why is there going to be a bailout?

Bush, Paulson, and the Administration are concerned about the fallout from the housing slump. If many people fall behind on their mortgages and have to give up their houses, there will be a series of negative repercussions. First, tens of thousands of Americans could be forced to leave their homes. They would lose whatever equity they had. Consumer spending more broadly would likely slow, hurting the economy overall. In addition, home prices could fall even more quickly than they are now. That could hurt consumer confidence well beyond those people directly affected.

Is the bailout going to be enough?

It depends on your definition of enough. The deal will add some stability to the housing market, but it won't stop all the problems in the troubled sector. The same day Bush unveiled his plan, the Mortgage Bankers Assn. said that foreclosures had reached a record high in the third quarter. The share of mortgages that have entered foreclosure hit 0.78% in the quarter, up from the previous high of 0.65% set in the previous quarter. At the same time, delinquencies for all mortgages rose to 5.59%, from 5.12%, in the second quarter. None of the people who are delinquent or facing foreclosure will be helped by the plan.

The deal almost certainly won't stop the decline in housing prices. Investors are betting that there will be double-digit declines (BusinessWeek.com, 11/27/07) in home prices in nine of 10 major markets over the next year. The only exception is Chicago, and there the estimate is for a 5.6% drop in home prices (BusinessWeek.com, 11/27/07).

So why not go further?

Some Democrats are criticizing the Bush Administration on that exact point. Senator Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.), among others, is arguing for a more ambitious approach, including at least a seven-year freeze on interest rates.

Who stands in the way of such an effort?

Investors in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. If homeowners are going to pay less on their mortgages than originally planned, then somebody is going to lose money. These aren't just fat cats on Wall Street—although many such firms have invested in these securities—they're also pension funds for teachers, firemen, and police, as well as mutual funds whose clients include all sorts of individual investors. They probably even include homeowners who are facing the prospect of higher payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/dec2007/db2007126_633122.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_ top+story

[Guitar Shark]

I usually take every opportunity to point out Bush's flaws, but at least this time he's actually trying to deal with a very real problem. I'll give him credit for that at least. Am I correct that Congress still has not offered legislation on the mortgage crisis? Score one for Bush if that's true.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I usually take every opportunity to point out Bush's flaws, but at least this time he's actually trying to deal with a very real problem. I'll give him credit for that at least. Am I correct that Congress still has not offered legislation on the mortgage crisis? Score one for Bush if that's true.

Had it come from Congress, Chimpy would have VETOED it as a Democratic Boondoggle. And you know it.

And Chimpy had NOTHING to do with this idea, plan, or scheme.

:gulp:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Had it come from Congress, Chimpy would have VETOED it as a Democratic Boondoggle. And you know it.


Possibly, but there would have been serious political fallout if he'd done that.

Another opportunity missed by the Dems.

[LoungeMachine]

Not to fret.

There's plenty of other VETO opportunites left on the horizon.

:gulp:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Who stands in the way of such an effort?

Investors in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. If homeowners are going to pay less on their mortgages than originally planned, then somebody is going to lose money. These aren't just fat cats on Wall Street—although many such firms have invested in these securities—they're also pension funds for teachers, firemen, and police, as well as mutual funds whose clients include all sorts of individual investors.

Florida's State Board of Administration trust fund just got all jacked up because they found out someone sold them shady mortgage backed securities that lost their value.

They had to put a freeze on withdrawals because there was a run on the fund. Many counties and municipalities took out their entire investment, hundreds of millions of dollars. Then the fund got raped on the Street raising all the cash to pay the governments back. A whole shitload of OUR wealth down the shitter because of this.

$2.2 billion. OUCH

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/NEWS01/711150336/1006

[LoungeMachine]

DLR'S Cock [the poster, not the appendage] needs to weigh in here on this...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Just out of curiosity, what's your beef with it?

You don't give a shit about most other issues today.

Why does this one make your panties bunch so?


In short, it's complete bullshit.

Let's start by just ignoring the fundamental unfairness of rewarding irresponsible behavior. People need to realize that this isn't about helping 'people.' It's about helping the institutions out that have money out invested in the marketplace. Did you see the stock market today? This isn't the social welfare they're selling it as, like everybody loves so much.

So the responsible people/banks - who only get /give mortgages with fixed rates for amounts that make sense? Fuck them.

The irresponsible people? They get a break. The banks who loan money to bad credit risks? They get a break.

But let's ignore that and look at the real problem:

1. Somebody is going to pay for this. That statement about it not costing government money is bullshit. It's a shell game, because the money ultimately was borrowed by the banks from a federal bank.

Either the banks will get a break on their loans in exchange for making this deal - which is a direct hit on tax dollars. Or future mortgage rates will go up (or loans harder to get - same difference) for the responsible borrowers. But somebody is going to pay for this. It's not Bush, and it's not the bank - it's you.

:heyfu:

2. When the government intervenes in the market and sends a signal of unpredictability, it's bad for everybody. The signal here is - go ahead and be irresponsible. Make irresponsible loans. Tell everybody what your bank's income will be in the future, then fix the interest rate instead. Fuck up, and get your house foreclosed, but we'll let you keep it.

No problem! Everybody do stupid shit, because the tax payers are here to bail out whatever asinine play you make. See the Florida Trust Fund above? That's just the beginning.

Greenspan said as much about a month ago, because he could smell this bullshit on the horizon.


:alien:

Didn't you previously blame Bush for the S&L bullshit? This smells very similar.

This is the government fucking you in the ass for the benefit of the rich, once again, yet they were able to package it this time as social welfare...so some stupid motherfuckers are lapping it up.

Fucking burns my ass. Fucking Ron Paul would be saying pay your mortgage or get the fuck out of the house. Make bad loans - then shut your fucking bank down because you're too stupid to operate. Stupid cunts.

:fu:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
In short, it's complete bullshit.

Let's start by just ignoring the fundamental unfairness of rewarding irresponsible behavior. People need to realize that this isn't about helping 'people.' It's about helping the institutions out that have money out invested in the marketplace. Did you see the stock market today? This isn't the social welfare they're selling it as, like everybody loves so much.

So the responsible people/banks - who only get /give mortgages with fixed rates for amounts that make sense? Fuck them.

The irresponsible people? They get a break. The banks who loan money to bad credit risks? They get a break.

But let's ignore that and look at the real problem:

1. Somebody is going to pay for this. That statement about it not costing government money is bullshit. It's a shell game, because the money ultimately was borrowed by the banks from a federal bank.

Either the banks will get a break on their loans in exchange for making this deal - which is a direct hit on tax dollars. Or future mortgage rates will go up (or loans harder to get - same difference) for the responsible borrowers. But somebody is going to pay for this. It's not Bush, and it's not the bank - it's you.

:heyfu:

2. When the government intervenes in the market and sends a signal of unpredictability, it's bad for everybody. The signal here is - go ahead and be irresponsible. Make irresponsible loans. Tell everybody what your bank's income will be in the future, then fix the interest rate instead. Fuck up, and get your house foreclosed, but we'll let you keep it.

No problem! Everybody do stupid shit, because the tax payers are here to bail out whatever asinine play you make. See the Florida Trust Fund above? That's just the beginning.

Greenspan said as much about a month ago, because he could smell this bullshit on the horizon.


:alien:

Didn't you previously blame Bush for the S&L bullshit? This smells very similar.

This is the government fucking you in the ass for the benefit of the rich, once again, yet they were able to package it this time as social welfare...so some stupid motherfuckers are lapping it up.

Fucking burns my ass. Fucking Ron Paul would be saying pay your mortgage or get the fuck out of the house. Make bad loans - then shut your fucking bank down because you're too stupid to operate. Stupid cunts.

:fu:

Yeah, the more I've been reading today, the more I agree with you.

Obviously it sure as hell didnt SMELL right considering this administration's track record of CORPORATE WELFARE.

But I bet you've got some skin in this. I've never seen you so wound up over something in here. ;)

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

(Actually, I'm long in the market, short in real estate. :D ) Blatant shit like this just burns my ass to no end. :mad: I'm living proof, he's helping douchebags like me. :fucku:

[Combat Ready]

Wish I had been more irresponsible and signed on to an adjustable rate with a teaser 3% or 4%. But no---I had to lock in with the fixed rate.

Lounge is right though---Bush signed off on it. I'll tell ya---He's spending almost as much as any Lib/socialist would. Mother fucking republians are selling out....Big time. Have been for 7 years or so.

Government should stay out of the fucking way. People should be able to make their own decisions----and deal with the results of said decisions. What a fucking joke!

[Combat Ready]

Originally posted by Blackflag
In short, it's complete bullshit.

Let's start by just ignoring the fundamental unfairness of rewarding irresponsible behavior. People need to realize that this isn't about helping 'people.' It's about helping the institutions out that have money out invested in the marketplace. Did you see the stock market today? This isn't the social welfare they're selling it as, like everybody loves so much.

So the responsible people/banks - who only get /give mortgages with fixed rates for amounts that make sense? Fuck them.

The irresponsible people? They get a break. The banks who loan money to bad credit risks? They get a break.

But let's ignore that and look at the real problem:

1. Somebody is going to pay for this. That statement about it not costing government money is bullshit. It's a shell game, because the money ultimately was borrowed by the banks from a federal bank.

Either the banks will get a break on their loans in exchange for making this deal - which is a direct hit on tax dollars. Or future mortgage rates will go up (or loans harder to get - same difference) for the responsible borrowers. But somebody is going to pay for this. It's not Bush, and it's not the bank - it's you.

:heyfu:

2. When the government intervenes in the market and sends a signal of unpredictability, it's bad for everybody. The signal here is - go ahead and be irresponsible. Make irresponsible loans. Tell everybody what your bank's income will be in the future, then fix the interest rate instead. Fuck up, and get your house foreclosed, but we'll let you keep it.

No problem! Everybody do stupid shit, because the tax payers are here to bail out whatever asinine play you make. See the Florida Trust Fund above? That's just the beginning.

Greenspan said as much about a month ago, because he could smell this bullshit on the horizon.


:alien:

Didn't you previously blame Bush for the S&L bullshit? This smells very similar.

This is the government fucking you in the ass for the benefit of the rich, once again, yet they were able to package it this time as social welfare...so some stupid motherfuckers are lapping it up.

Fucking burns my ass. Fucking Ron Paul would be saying pay your mortgage or get the fuck out of the house. Make bad loans - then shut your fucking bank down because you're too stupid to operate. Stupid cunts.

:fu:

Yepper---all true.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:rolleyes:

You really are an idiot.

For starters, moron, this was a REPUBLICAN Administrations "plan"

Second, according to the REPUBLICAN Sec. of Treasury no goverment funds would be at risk.

This Crisis happened under a REPUBLICAN Administration's watch.


On the bright side, your double-wide will probably remain safe for you and Mrs. Jenny Craig



WRONG AGAIN.

[scamper]

Originally posted by Combat Ready
He's spending almost as much as any Lib/socialist would. Mother fucking republians are selling out....Big time. Have been for 7 years or so.


He's handed out more money than any other president. He's also made our government bigger than ever. He's lied about everything since taking office. Worst president ever? It's going to take forever to get out of this mess.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
WRONG AGAIN.

Ooops.

You're right.

You're still in a single-wide.

It's your wife that's the double-wide.

my bad.

:gulp:

[DrMaddVibe]

And you're STILL Kip Winger!

[steve]

Originally posted by Blackflag
In short, it's complete bullshit.

Let's start by just ignoring the fundamental unfairness of rewarding irresponsible behavior. People need to realize that this isn't about helping 'people.' It's about helping the institutions out that have money out invested in the marketplace. Did you see the stock market today? This isn't the social welfare they're selling it as, like everybody loves so much.

So the responsible people/banks - who only get /give mortgages with fixed rates for amounts that make sense? Fuck them.

The irresponsible people? They get a break. The banks who loan money to bad credit risks? They get a break.

But let's ignore that and look at the real problem:

1. Somebody is going to pay for this. That statement about it not costing government money is bullshit. It's a shell game, because the money ultimately was borrowed by the banks from a federal bank.

Either the banks will get a break on their loans in exchange for making this deal - which is a direct hit on tax dollars. Or future mortgage rates will go up (or loans harder to get - same difference) for the responsible borrowers. But somebody is going to pay for this. It's not Bush, and it's not the bank - it's you.

:heyfu:

2. When the government intervenes in the market and sends a signal of unpredictability, it's bad for everybody. The signal here is - go ahead and be irresponsible. Make irresponsible loans. Tell everybody what your bank's income will be in the future, then fix the interest rate instead. Fuck up, and get your house foreclosed, but we'll let you keep it.

No problem! Everybody do stupid shit, because the tax payers are here to bail out whatever asinine play you make. See the Florida Trust Fund above? That's just the beginning.

Greenspan said as much about a month ago, because he could smell this bullshit on the horizon.


:alien:

Didn't you previously blame Bush for the S&L bullshit? This smells very similar.

This is the government fucking you in the ass for the benefit of the rich, once again, yet they were able to package it this time as social welfare...so some stupid motherfuckers are lapping it up.

:fu:
A M E N!

[steve]

And while we're talking about the concept of a "safety net", let us not forget that even the most liberal of concepts don't expect the government to provide citizens with mansions - and in some cases, this is exactly what is happening.

I'm all for a net when it comes to school lunches, or building homeless shelters, making sure our elderly don't end up destitute (social security), and even a basic health care.

But under no argument of a social welfare system does one have the right to buy something waaaaaaaay over their budget and then expect a handout to pay for it. By the same token, citizens have no obligation to bail out businesses who engage in seriously reckless (bordering on illegal) lending practices.

Also, anybody else think Bush is getting desperate about protecting his legacy? Conceivably, even with leaving the next Pres with a mess of a foreign policy, at least Bush could have pointed at 6 or 7 years of economic growth. But with the housing bubble bursting sooner than later, we might be looking at a recession that could start the last year of his term and last several years, ruining the last mirage of success he could point to.

[Nitro Express]

The begining of the end was when the Federal Reserve Act was voted into law in 1913. This took the control of the money supply away from the elected govt. and put it into the hands of a private bank owned by private investors. It put a select few in charge of our money supply. The coffin nail was when Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1972. This allowed the Fed to print money at will and ruined the value of the US dollar since.

Our currency should be based on a commodity that trades at market prices. This eliminates the runaway inflation caused by deficite spending. The argument that we wouldn't have enough money is stupid. A penny would be worth something again. You just take the pie you have and cut it up into smaller slivers if you have to.

We are awash in cheap dollars and the low interest rates only creat bubble economies that inflate and bust hard. It's not good policy by any means.

[Nitro Express]

If there isn't enough gold we could have Blowjob Notes. The Govt. could have a fixed number of select whores that people can trade their paper money in for a blowjob. That would keep it's value as good as silver or gold.

We could have notes based on the price of variouse sexual favors.

I should be fucking president! :D