Congress Readies Activist Housing Agenda

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional leaders are racing to push through an array of election-year housing measures that already have stirred up much political wrangling and the White House is examining its own plan to further help homeowners caught in the mortgage meltdown....

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

Read the full story.

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional leaders are racing to push through an array of election-year housing measures that already have stirred up much political wrangling and the White House is examining its own plan to further help homeowners caught in the mortgage meltdown....

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

Read the full story.

 

This one sounds pretty reasonable to me:

The lenders have to take a hit for making a stupid loan, and the borrower has to prove (s)he can repay the debt before the loan is guaranteed. No debt defaulted, no cost to the taxpayer.

 

This one sounds pretty reasonable to me:

The lenders have to take a hit for making a stupid loan, and the borrower has to prove (s)he can repay the debt before the loan is guaranteed. No debt defaulted, no cost to the taxpayer.

 

And that's why there is no way this plan will make it through the US Congress. It contains and requires way too much common sense and personal responsibility.

 

And that's why there is no way this plan will make it through the US Congress. It contains and requires way too much common sense and personal responsibility.

 

And from Barney Frank!

 

And from Barney Frank!

 

Actually, I have some problems with the program. It undermines the free market and will temporarily maintain artificially high housing prices. It does put public money at risk as the article states. It will not be the first time the feds have stepped in to aid bankers who gambled and lost. Banker, just like casino players, need to pay when their gamble does not pay off. I am betting the taxpayer would end up getting stuck with 5 to 10% of the 300 to 400 billion guaranteed mortgages.

In 1983 I bought a home for 49K, three years later it was worth 33K. No one bailed me out. I sold it in 1996 for 59K.

 

Actually, I have some problems with the program. It undermines the free market and will temporarily maintain artificially high housing prices. It does put public money at risk as the article states. It will not be the first time the feds have stepped in to aid bankers who gambled and lost. Banker, just like casino players, need to pay when their gamble does not pay off. I am betting the taxpayer would end up getting stuck with 5 to 10% of the 300 to 400 billion guaranteed mortgages.

In 1983 I bought a home for 49K, three years later it was worth 33K. No one bailed me out. I sold it in 1996 for 59K.

 

I bought a house somewhere around '79 or '80. When I got divorced in '82, the judge ordered the house sold and proceeds split. The house was on the market for a year and I ended up getting just what I paid for it (thank God). If I had lost money, I don't know if I could have kept my head above water. I do agree that the government shouldn't keep house prices artificially high. I was just thinking that Frank's plan was the best of what's been put out, with the least cost to the taxpayer (unfortunately I think there will be a bailout).

 

I bought a house somewhere around '79 or '80. When I got divorced in '82, the judge ordered the house sold and proceeds split. The house was on the market for a year and I ended up getting just what I paid for it (thank God). If I had lost money, I don't know if I could have kept my head above water. I do agree that the government shouldn't keep house prices artificially high. I was just thinking that Frank's plan was the best of what's been put out, with the least cost to the taxpayer (unfortunately I think there will be a bailout).

 

delete double post

 

delete double post