Housing Rescue Plan: For Some or For All?
Vague reports about the Obama administration’s plan in the works to help people in danger of losing their houses are starting to surface. Whether it ends up with the government subsidizing monthly payments or modifying the loans themselves, the big question, it seems to us, is whether the ultimate solution should address only those in…
Vague reports about the Obama administration’s plan in the works to help people in danger of losing their houses are starting to surface. Whether it ends up with the government subsidizing monthly payments or modifying the loans themselves, the big question, it seems to us, is whether the ultimate solution should address only those in immediate trouble or be an across-the-board relief measure. On the one hand, even if you’ve been playing by the rules and aren’t directly benefiting from a homeowner bailout, it’s still in the interest of your own property value to see fewer foreclosures and empty houses in your neighborhood; on the other hand, why should only the irresponsible and the unlucky get hand-outs? Tough stuff.
Start buying hard assets, our dollar is going to crapppppp…
Montrose, you don’t think this would be riddled with grey areas. So someone who put 10% down and was dependent on a wall street bonus and has been living a life of luxury but now lost his job. Do you subsidize him? Or how about the guy in small town america who just lost his job, but realizes he will get subsidized if he doesn’t take the $8 / hour McDonalds job, while his neighbor from the same factory that shut down does take the McD’s job and is able to, through extreme hardship, keep good on his payments. Too much grey area IMO
“There is a BIG difference between foreclosure due to greed in RE speculation, or living way above one’s means, and foreclosure due to losing your job”
Really, Montrose?
Doesn’t “living within one’s means” mean to save for a rainy day?
In other threads, you state that we ought to return to the concept of thrift (with which I agree). How does this plan reward thrift? Suburbandude’s post at 10.25 AM framed the issue exactly right.
I am totally opposed to any plan that dis-incentivizes thrift, which is what this country needs to get back to. I am tired of seeing the concept of personal responsibility trashed by our governments.
Finally, regarding a sudden job loss, MM: don’t we already have unemployment insurance? Where does nanny state stop? When does personal responsibility take over?
Fairness is usually the first casualty in crisis. No it’s not fair that folks who lived within their means won’t get help in this situation. But the goal here is not fairness–it’s avoiding disaster.
I don’t really know if this plan is the best choices, but from what I can tell, any and all proposals will have to be unfair to be sufficiently potent and widespread to have an impact on the overall economy.
What- all I have to say is that being called a loser by the likes of you is an honor. Had you comlimented me I would have been embarrassed.
I realize your life is so miserable that you can only sit and spew so I won’t beat up on you too much this time. Unless you’d like me to…. but then that would mean you like it too much and I’m not into the dominatrix stuff. Unless you’re in handcuffs and underwear. (I bet there are some cops who would pay good money to see that!)
Why,dcorreale? I would assume any program would have to have applicants filling out forms. This is the gov’t, after all. If you list your assets, expenses, tax forms, credit reports, pay stubs, etc, etc – all the things you submit to get an above board mortgage in the first place, any trained agent can tell true economic hardship from someone buying a mansion with a trailor income.
What will be prohibitivly expensive will be to do nothing.
The only way this would be fair is to do it for people who either purchased a home they could actually afford with a reasonable loan and are now in trouble because of unemployment and the economic situation, or people who were victims of predatory lending. Since there is no way to really figure that out I don’t think they can do it. As suburbandude pointed out, it is not justifiable to subsidize someone who was reckless with their money.
Also, if they actually introduce that new home buyer credit I am going to be pissed. What about someone like me who already took a chance and purchased a place just a few months ago???
economically disadvantaged?
what on earth is that?
a college education and “aint got no job?”
It is logistically impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive, to separate the “worthy” and “unworthy” defaulters.