Housing Bailout Will Have Narrow Focus
When Obama speaks today in Phoenix, it is expected that he will reveal a housing rescue plan that will focus only on those homeowners who can no longer afford their mortgages and leave out those who have negative equity but are still able to meet monthly payments. “In coming weeks, his administration will begin spending…
When Obama speaks today in Phoenix, it is expected that he will reveal a housing rescue plan that will focus only on those homeowners who can no longer afford their mortgages and leave out those who have negative equity but are still able to meet monthly payments. “In coming weeks, his administration will begin spending $50 billion to entice banks to reduce the monthly payments of people who otherwise couldn’t afford to stay in their houses,” reports The Times. “In effect, the government will split the losses on these mortgages with banks.” The move amounts to a bet that most of those underwater won’t walk away from their homes in the coming months. In the housing bear market of the early 1990s, a recent study found, only 6.4 percent of homeowners in the Boston area who were underwater ended up getting foreclosed on and only an estimated 1 to 2 percent walked away from their homes. Frankly, it’s hard for us to see how this has any meaningful impact on the problem. Meanwhile, a civil disobedience movement is growing locally to fight evictions. You want to haul us out to jail? Fine, said Bertha Lewis, Acorn head and Ratner sell-out.
Bailout Likely to Focus on Most Afflicted Homeowners [NY Times]
Effort Takes Shape to Support Families Facing Foreclosure [NY Times]
“The “Have’s” are going to get pretty fed up with the “Have Not’s” sucking at the tit of the government in such an egregious way.”
You’re right, Dave. Let the banks fail. Or nationalize them since they seem to lack the Four C’s.
I read something recently about Vermont having the lowest level of any kind of problem loans with some talk about “work ethics,” etc, etc, etc. True no dount.
No Joe, I was trying to converse with the what. But he appears to be talking to himself, so I’ll listen to you instead.
the really scary thing is that people will feel justified walking away, because they will blame the bankers for f-ing up the economy. in the early 90s we did have a recession, but not this level of outrage.
u mean me ditto? just wondering how other people look at this decision to walk away. In NE, people joke about their “puritan” values, but there’s a lot of truth to it — the way people think about thrift, risk, ethics — I think its a big part of the reason there weren’t a lot of sub-prime mortgages in the region, and an important reason they behaved the way they did in the early 90s.
based on what I see on TV, which I admit is all I know about the sun belt, I think it’s more about simple economics. if it doesn’t make sense to pay, f*ck it, right? It’s totally cultural.
No. What do you mean?
EXACTLY joe…there are arguable Four C’s of Lending: Credit, Capacity, Collateral & Character. Most people these days lacjk the Character to payb their debts.
The “Have’s” are going to get pretty fed up with the “Have Not’s” sucking at the tit of the government in such an egregious way.
Let the autos fail. It’ll only add about 2 MM to the unemployment roles.
“And you are arguing with the Retards?”
Who is he talking to today?
Posted by: dittoburg at February 18, 2009 9:58 AM”
See what I mean…
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
“In all, maybe only 1 or 2 percent of underwater [Boston] homeowners walked away even though they could make their payments.”
anyone else here raised in new england? (I was) This stat doesn’t surprise me at all. I think walking away from a mortgage you can afford would be seen as very morally wrong in that part of the country. I’m not so sure the same is true in the sun belt. anyone from there?