DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on December 06, 2007, 06:13:15 PM
-
New plan to slow forclosures.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22132648/
a plan negotiated by the Bush administration to freeze interest rates on subprime mortgages that are scheduled to rise in the coming months.
Does this prove that Bush is compassionate , or does it prove that he doesn't understand money?
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/HomeownerBailoutIsALousyIdea.aspx?page=1
The program proposed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson -- hammered out in round-robin meetings with mortgage lenders and borrowers' representatives in the past few weeks -- would freeze interest payments on up to 2 million adjustable-rate mortgages for three to five years.
That sounds nice, but here's the catch: Rising interest rates were contractually promised to the mortgage lenders, who then passed along that promise to companies that bought the loans as part of asset-backed securities and associated derivatives.
Though the rate freeze would be awesome to a mortgage holder in Muncie, Ind., who wants to get out of his adjustable-rate obligation, it sounds terrible to a pension-fund manager in Munich who isn't getting the income stream he paid for, as well as to the mortgage-servicing company that won't be getting its own piece of the future income stream.
There has always been a bit of a question about whether Bush was really a conservative, financhially he seems rather flexable where he might should be firm. This plan strikes me as liberal , but Nixonian in its Liberal bent. Nixon froze wages and prices , Bush is freezing mortguage top rates. I guess he doesn't feel obliged to act conserative .
-
First off, this isn't the government's money, so it isn't an issue of Juniorbush being conservative or "liberal". We know he is anything but compassionate. Juniorbush has yet to show that he cares one iota for anyone. He is just following orders. If something isn't done, there could be a couple of houses sitting vacant on every block. This would drag down the prices of houses people who DON'T have subprime mortgages. The banks could refuse to lend them more money on their houses, and that is what has been driving the economy of late: people spending borrowed money. This is just a minimal stopgap measure to prevent a major collapse of housing value which could wreck the economy and cause other higher rate increases in remaining adjustable mortgages. This is the equivalent of a big dope slap for greedy lenders and connaiving realtors who have diddled dummies who they have convinced to buy more house than they can afford.
-
>>This is the equivalent of a big dope slap for greedy lenders and connaiving realtors who have diddled dummies who they have convinced to buy more house than they can afford.<<
What must it be like to live in XO's deeply disturbed world? Everyone in it is up to dastardly deeds and involved in deeply depraved conspiracies.
:o
-
First off, this isn't the government's money, so it isn't an issue of Juniorbush being conservative or "liberal". We know he is anything but compassionate.
It shouldn't be the governments business unless there is a crime to be prevented , and we are no talkig about a fraud on these people, Bush is not obliged to take any action.
I take it that you like the plan , but still dislike the authors?
-
The plan is pretty much essential to keep the economy going. There really isn't much choice. If something isn't done, it could do very serious harm to the economy.
Juniorbush is a disaster for mongering the Iraq War alone.
I didn't say this was a conspiracy. But you have to be rather blind to not have noticed the problems these subprime mortgages have caused with the economy already.
-
The plan is pretty much essential to keep the economy going. There really isn't much choice. If something isn't done, it could do very serious harm to the economy.
Juniorbush is a disaster for mongering the Iraq War alone.
I didn't say this was a conspiracy. But you have to be rather blind to not have noticed the problems these subprime mortgages have caused with the economy already.
Consider me myopic , could you point out he problem you are referring to?
-
The stock market, and not just the US stock market, has taken several serious dives based solely on the problems caused by the way the subprime loans were made by one bank, then bundled as super safe secured loans and peddled around the world as great high yield investments. The banks that issued the loans sold them to others, and when the variable interest rates were raised, and defaults began occurring it set of several bad cases of panic.
Surely you have heard of this on the news.
-
The stock market, and not just the US stock market, has taken several serious dives based solely on the problems caused by the way the subprime loans were made by one bank, then bundled as super safe secured loans and peddled around the world as great high yield investments.
I'd like to see where sub-prime loans were sold as "super safe secured loans" - I always saw them listed as "sub-prime."
-
The plan is pretty much essential to keep the economy going. There really isn't much choice. If something isn't done, it could do very serious harm to the economy.
Juniorbush is a disaster for mongering the Iraq War alone.
I didn't say this was a conspiracy. But you have to be rather blind to not have noticed the problems these subprime mortgages have caused with the economy already.
Perhaps the economy NEEDS to be "hit" in order to stop this irresponsbile lending and also os as to not happen in the future?
-
Perhaps the economy NEEDS to be "hit" in order to stop this irresponsbile lending and also as as to not happen in the future?
==================================================================================
That's clever. A tiny number of irresponsible bankers and realtors sucker an assortmant of boobs into buying houses they can afford, and your solution is to whap every single man woman and child in the country with a RECESSION?
How is this going to educate the people who caused the mess?
That is lunacy. There are better ways of assuring banks, realtors and consumers do not screw up.
Allowing mortgages to be bundled and peddled on the stock market was the cause of this. If you want to do something, just ban that. It's not any sort of fundamental right to bundle mortgages and hawk them on Wall Street.
-
Allowing mortgages to be bundled and peddled on the stock market was the cause of this. If you want to do something, just ban that. It's not any sort of fundamental right to bundle mortgages and hawk them on Wall Street.
They're peddled on the bond market, not the stock market.
And many securities are handled in just this way. Do you propose to eliminate the bond market (which is three times the size of the stock markets)?
-
I'd like to see where sub-prime loans were sold as "super safe secured loans" - I always saw them listed as "sub-prime."
that`s funny
in the news the people who take the loans are painted as irresponsible .
but very little is talked about the folks who gave the loans.
loaning money to people who can`t through normal channels pay it back is a bone head move.
I think more focus should be on the lender`s and how they should lose money also
nobody should be protected from this fiasco made by educated responsible adults.
-
in the news the people who take the loans are painted as irresponsible .
but very little is talked about the folks who gave the loans.
loaning money to people who can`t through normal channels pay it back is a bone head move.
I think more focus should be on the lender`s and how they should lose money also
nobody should be protected from this fiasco made by educated responsible adults.
The lenders are - they're all taking huge hits, many in the $billion+ range. This "crisis" is mostly the fault of the banks, they shot themselves in the foot.
-
in the news the people who take the loans are painted as irresponsible .
but very little is talked about the folks who gave the loans.
loaning money to people who can`t through normal channels pay it back is a bone head move.
I think more focus should be on the lender`s and how they should lose money also
nobody should be protected from this fiasco made by educated responsible adults.
The lenders are - they're all taking huge hits, many in the $billion+ range. This "crisis" is mostly the fault of the banks, they shot themselves in the foot.
And, so taxpayers should bail thme out?
-
And, so taxpayers should bail thme out?
Nope. They got themselves into the problem, they should dig their own way out.
-
They're peddled on the bond market, not the stock market.
And many securities are handled in just this way. Do you propose to eliminate the bond market (which is three times the size of the stock markets)?
==========================================
It was not previously the case where home mortgages were bundled and sold as if they were bonds. Banks used to own the mortgages and collect the payments on them for 30 years. It would not be all that difficult to prohibit the sale of bundled home mortgages.
They were sold from bank to bank as safe secured securities. They were only renamed 'sub prime mortgages' when this whole mess started to head south.
Variable rate mortgages, mortgages with huge baloon payments and somesuch crap are not necessary, either.
-
And, so taxpayers should bail thme out?
============================
There is no proposal that taxpayers will bail them out.
The proposal is that variable rate mortgages that were supposed to change their rates upwards would be postponed voluntarily from doing thie tro prevent bankruptcies and a collapse of the mortgage and real estate markets.
We are only bailing the Iraqis out for messing up their country with dictatorships and religious disputes.
-
It was not previously the case where home mortgages were bundled and sold as if they were bonds. Banks used to own the mortgages and collect the payments on them for 30 years. It would not be all that difficult to prohibit the sale of bundled home mortgages.
Been that way for many, many years now. Don't you remember the old "Fannie Mae" ads? What do you think Fannie Mae does? And besides, if you go back as far as you're proposing, mortgages were only 4 year instruments. The 30 year mortgage did not come around until banks started bundling and selling mortgages.
They were sold from bank to bank as safe secured securities. They were only renamed 'sub prime mortgages' when this whole mess started to head south.
So, now you're saying that bank officers are way too stupid to know what sub-prime mortgages are? I suggest that you know less about the mortgage business than bankers who specialize in mortgages do...
Variable rate mortgages, mortgages with huge baloon payments and somesuch crap are not necessary, either.
They are useful in certain circumstances. I've used both to my advantage.
-
The proposal is that variable rate mortgages that were supposed to change their rates upwards would be postponed voluntarily from doing thie tro prevent bankruptcies and a collapse of the mortgage and real estate markets.
This is a step that most banks were doing on their own anyway. The ones who weren't are the ones in really bad shape.