Paulson just can't bring himself to help homeowners.

[techs]

http://www.marketwatch.com/new...7-9BF0-4E30D504F8ED%7D

Democratic lawmakers told Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Tuesday that he must reverse course and spend some of the $700 billion in bailout funds to keep individual homeowners from losing their homes.

"Some of this TARP money has to be used for mortgage foreclosure prevention," House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank told Paulson at an oversight hearing on the Troubled Asset Relief Program on Tuesday.

"When the program was passed, very explicit language was included to provide for ... mortgage foreclosure diminution as one of the purposes. There's very specific language in there," Frank said.

Paulson reiterated his opposition to using any of the money to buy mortgage-backed securities or individual mortgages, although that was his original plan in September when he asked Congress for an unprecedented amount of money to keep global credit markets going.

Paulson also opposed a proposal introduced Friday by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair, who is seeking to use $24.4 billion of the $700 billion authorized by Congress to modify loans and avert 1.5 million foreclosures.

Other Democratic lawmakers also expressed opposition to Paulson's approach of investing money in banks and other financial institutions to bolster their capital and allow more lending.




I KNEW it. The Bush lackeys just can't bring themselves to actually help working class Americans. They lied about how they would spend the bailout money.
It's just amazing that they seem constitutionally (sic) unable to help real Americans and continue to be the bitch of the large corporations.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs
It's just amazing that they seem constitutionally (sic) unable to help real Americans and continue to be the bitch of the large corporations.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.marketwatch.com/new...7-9BF0-4E30D504F8ED%7D

Democratic lawmakers told Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Tuesday that he must reverse course and spend some of the $700 billion in bailout funds to keep individual homeowners from losing their homes.

"Some of this TARP money has to be used for mortgage foreclosure prevention," House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank told Paulson at an oversight hearing on the Troubled Asset Relief Program on Tuesday.

"When the program was passed, very explicit language was included to provide for ... mortgage foreclosure diminution as one of the purposes. There's very specific language in there," Frank said.

Paulson reiterated his opposition to using any of the money to buy mortgage-backed securities or individual mortgages, although that was his original plan in September when he asked Congress for an unprecedented amount of money to keep global credit markets going.

Paulson also opposed a proposal introduced Friday by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair, who is seeking to use $24.4 billion of the $700 billion authorized by Congress to modify loans and avert 1.5 million foreclosures.

Other Democratic lawmakers also expressed opposition to Paulson's approach of investing money in banks and other financial institutions to bolster their capital and allow more lending.




I KNEW it. The Bush lackeys just can't bring themselves to actually help working class Americans. They lied about how they would spend the bailout money.
It's just amazing that they seem constitutionally (sic) unable to help real Americans and continue to be the bitch of the large corporations.

How do you get the relief to the guy in need without setting up a massive bureaucracy?

 

[mxyzptlk]

just do it like they did in the green zone in Bagdad. Hand out billions of dollars in cash with no accounting at all.

 

[alchemize]

Much more likely to get some ROI for a wall street bailout than handouts to deadbeats.

 

[cubby1223]

And where's my damn bailout money for not making stupid decisions?

In other words, I don't agree with the Democrats on this issue.

 

[PottedMeat]

Aren't Citibank/BOA/etc. + one of those federal agencies doing the direct renegotiating of mortgage terms with homeowners?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
just do it like they did in the green zone in Bagdad. Hand out billions of dollars in cash with no accounting at all.

Didn't Bush try and put the guy who was in charge of handing out the money in Bahgdad in charge of handing out the bailout money, until the Dems go wind of it?

 

[Slew Foot]

Id prefer for all the idiots to get kicked out of their homes so that they can return to reasonable prices. And the stupid banks that lent the idiots money that they couldnt pay back should shut their doors too.

 

[StageLeft]

Impossible to deny the assertion I'm making that this has been a royal fvckup.

But then I brought up the point before, you don't pay the arson to fight the fire and Paulson/Bernanke sat, cock in hand, while this transpired, oblivious to it, and then they are asked to fix it. It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[BoberFett]

This bailout will prove to be a boon for the world.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
Paulson also opposed a proposal introduced Friday by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair, who is seeking to use $24.4 billion of the $700 billion authorized by Congress to modify loans and avert 1.5 million foreclosures.

Correction, it's at least 5 million home foreclosures

 

[Jhhnn]

the psychology of the Human Race won't allow it to happen. If the feds start bailing out individual homeowners, then god only knows how many recent buyers will suddenly end up rather creatively "in trouble". I doubt that a mere $700B would cover it...

Anybody who bought recently in one of the more bubblicious markets is already screwed, how badly is determined by the terms of the loan and their ability to pay.

If you put half down on a $700K 30 year note and can afford the payments, you can escape with your hide attached anytime, and you'll probably end up even in a decade or so...

If you put 0 down on a $700K 3 year option ARM at a teaser rate and can barely afford the minimum negative amortization payment now, well, uhh, err, yeh- you're hopelessly screwed. Be ready to move when the loan recasts.

Other than investors and banks drinking their own koolaid, somebody else has to be screwed, and that's the people who paid too much, drank the realtors' koolaid...

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
This bailout will prove to be a boon for the world.

Well the first hundred billion or so went towards executive pay and stockholder dividends, so I'd agree that it's proving to be a great boon to the world*



*depending on your definition of who 'the world' is.






I don't even care anymore. Just let the rich have it all. They deserve it, that's why they're so much better than the rest of us.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
just do it like they did in the green zone in Bagdad. Hand out billions of dollars in cash with no accounting at all.

Didn't Bush try and put the guy who was in charge of handing out the money in Bahgdad in charge of handing out the bailout money, until the Dems go wind of it?

I admit, that's where I got the idea for that post

 

[SigArms08]

Isn't China proceeding with a $500 billion 'bailout' of their own? Instead of just giving money to large banks (so that they can use said money to buy smaller banks) like the US gov't has done, China actually intends to build up their infrastructure. In short, they'll create jobs and have tangible assets of significant value for their money. What will the American people have after our bailout money is thrown to the four winds?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: SigArms08
Isn't China proceeding with a $500 billion 'bailout' of their own? Instead of just giving money to large banks (so that they can use said money to buy smaller banks) like the US gov't has done, China actually intends to build up their infrastructure. In short, they'll create jobs and have tangible assets of significant value for their money. What will the American people have after our bailout money is thrown to the four winds?

This is why China is going to own us one day.

 

[palehorse]

Wow... so, you advocate giving the money directly to idiots who got in over their heads and played a huge role in this entire debacle?

Fuck that.

Let them and the banks that gave them the loans fail. Let all of America deal with, and survive, one gigantic dose of reality and personal responsibility. This bailout nonsense needs to end... if we continue down this path of unbridled handouts, we'll end up with 50% tax rates. The scary part is that some of you seem to be OK with that! :|

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Impossible to deny the assertion I'm making that this has been a royal fvckup.

But then I brought up the point before, you don't pay the arson to fight the fire and Paulson/Bernanke sat, cock in hand, while this transpired, oblivious to it, and then they are asked to fix it. It simply doesn't make sense.

And the Democratic controlled congress was even more oblivious to it, even arguing fiercely even through this past summer that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were still solid, well run companies. Should we trust those morons to fix this problem?

Honestly, if I had to choose, I'll choose a former Goldman Sachs CEO over *any* publicly elected representative to aid in fixing the financial system.

If you don't trust Paulson, then that's fine, just don't expect congress to do any better.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: SigArms08
Isn't China proceeding with a $500 billion 'bailout' of their own? Instead of just giving money to large banks (so that they can use said money to buy smaller banks) like the US gov't has done, China actually intends to build up their infrastructure. In short, they'll create jobs and have tangible assets of significant value for their money. What will the American people have after our bailout money is thrown to the four winds?

That's what FDR tried with his New Deal, and it didn't do a thing to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: SigArms08
Isn't China proceeding with a $500 billion 'bailout' of their own? Instead of just giving money to large banks (so that they can use said money to buy smaller banks) like the US gov't has done, China actually intends to build up their infrastructure. In short, they'll create jobs and have tangible assets of significant value for their money. What will the American people have after our bailout money is thrown to the four winds?

That's what FDR tried with his New Deal, and it didn't do a thing to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression.

Yeah.

Who needs bridges, schools, roads and other needless infrastructure?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: SigArms08
Isn't China proceeding with a $500 billion 'bailout' of their own? Instead of just giving money to large banks (so that they can use said money to buy smaller banks) like the US gov't has done, China actually intends to build up their infrastructure. In short, they'll create jobs and have tangible assets of significant value for their money. What will the American people have after our bailout money is thrown to the four winds?

That's what FDR tried with his New Deal, and it didn't do a thing to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression.

That's right, drag out the current rightwing revisionist history meme about Roosevelt and the Great Depression.

The biggest difference between then and now is the flywheel effect of "big govt", something the Rightwing seeks desperately to deny. Back then, when the private sector took a faceplant, there was nothing to keep commerce flowing. Many of Roosevelt's programs to do that were actually begun under Hoover, in an effort to provide a viable alternative, but they had to start from scratch. Having more people in the employ of the govt will serve to moderate the situation today, much to the chagrin and dismay of the Free Market! ravers...

The paychecks of federal, state, and local govt employees will do more to stimulate the economy than any pissant stimulus package, bet on that... and the commerce generated by their employers will keep many ancilliary business afloat at the same time...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: SigArms08
Isn't China proceeding with a $500 billion 'bailout' of their own? Instead of just giving money to large banks (so that they can use said money to buy smaller banks) like the US gov't has done, China actually intends to build up their infrastructure. In short, they'll create jobs and have tangible assets of significant value for their money. What will the American people have after our bailout money is thrown to the four winds?

That's what FDR tried with his New Deal, and it didn't do a thing to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression.

That's right, drag out the current rightwing revisionist history meme about Roosevelt and the Great Depression.

The biggest difference between then and now is the flywheel effect of "big govt", something the Rightwing seeks desperately to deny. Back then, when the private sector took a faceplant, there was nothing to keep commerce flowing. Many of Roosevelt's programs to do that were actually begun under Hoover, in an effort to provide a viable alternative, but they had to start from scratch. Having more people in the employ of the govt will serve to moderate the situation today, much to the chagrin and dismay of the Free Market! ravers...

The paychecks of federal, state, and local govt employees will do more to stimulate the economy than any pissant stimulus package, bet on that... and the commerce generated by their employers will keep many ancilliary business afloat at the same time...

The federal and state govt are the largest employers in the country. Why isnt it moderating the situation? Not big enough in your opinion?

And there is no revisionist history. Many of FDR's programs didnt deliver. 1940 we still had 20% unemployment and a slagging economy. The bottom line we can take from those programs is govt isnt always the answer. No matter how many times lefties try to tell us it is.

I wont argue that what FDR did didnt help to keep us from sliding in a fascist model. But many of the benefits people claim happened either never did or are overblown.

And I find it funny that lefties are pushing this big govt fascism model now. But I guess it shouldnt be a surprise. Many Fascists were originally socialists who saw the flaws in that system but wanted to retain govt power while actually having an economy that performed.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
And where's my damn bailout money for not making stupid decisions?

In other words, I don't agree with the Democrats on this issue.

Seconded,
so you give the person that bought a house outside of their means a break? What about the people that bought within their means?

 

[Jhhnn]

The federal and state govt are the largest employers in the country. Why isnt it moderating the situation?

How lame. Does it look like 1930-1932 out there, with bread lines, soup kitchens, and displaced Okies migrating to California?

Is money so dear that prices have fallen precipitously?

Are the freeways empty?

Gee- why not?