McCain's mortgage plan
Posted By: sm on 2008-10-08
In Reply to:
Did anybody understand when McCain brought up plan to buy bad mortgages and renegotiate, etc. Would that be with the $700 billion we are already shelling out or would this be an additional $300 Billion the taxpayers have to pay. If I can get my mortgage renegotiated with the government, maybe I'll just stop paying my mortgage and get something out of this after all!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If the current mortgage securities plan prevails,
come out of it all smelling like a rose. They are proposing to refinance the mortgages based on inflated appraised values that existed BEFORE the mortgage crisis, not the current lower values. In this way, the homeowners will still end up owing more on their mortgages than their homes are actually worth....they will just be paying for it for a longer term with more accumulated interest on the loan. Those terms are the ones we need to keep our eyes on and see how it plays out, but it looks to me like it is not going to make it into the next session of Congress.
McCain has fogotten the stock market crash, mortgage/credit crisis,
unemployment rates, job losses, stagnant wages, rising prices in gas, food, health care, etc, etc, etc.
Why are you McCain people so desperate? You are just like McCain. No plan. Just criticism of the
other candidate. I guess you want the same old thing we have had for the past 8 years. God forbid McCain win with that wild woman, Palin.
And so how exactly does McCain plan to fix
He could sell Alaska to the Japanese. They need the land & the natural resources, and they most definitely have the money.
McCain's plan...
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
Not as described above.
Obama's Plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
They seem very similar to me...big difference is Obama wants the government to control it and McCain wants individuals to control their own health care. I don't see a problem with that.
Which is why I am still voting McCain.
McCain economic plan...
Click on the individual windows to get the complete plan.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
McCain's secret plan
He keeps saying he knows how to find BinLaden and will do that after he is elected. Why isn't he sharing his secret fool-proof plan to capture him with the current administration? He is dangling that promise over our heads. If he actually does have a fantastic plan, he is allowing the whole country to be vulnerable UNTIL he gets what he wants - the presidency. Thumbs down on you, grandpa.
Mccain did say that he had a plan to use 300 billion...
of the 700 billion to buy back bad mortgages and renegotiate them to a fixed rate so that people could stay in their homes. Obama said this morning that was a bad idea and it rewarded bad lenders. But it WOULD protect the homeowners. He can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
Obama has not said how he will fix the economic crisis either. He talks in generalities. He said that yes, maybe some programs should be cut, but won't given even ONE example. He says he still plans to raise taxes on the rich (which are the businesses, the corporations, most of the jobmakers in this country). Now you tell ME how THAT is going to HELP the economy.
McCain has said he would FREEZE spending except for the most necessary programs. THAT is what will HELP the economy. If Obama said freeze spending his base woudl go apoplectic.
McCain has said more specific things than Obama has said about getting us out of his crisis. You just aren't listening to anyone but Obama and the Obama campaign. I am listening to BOTH of them.
John McCain has given a plan.
John McCain believes our schools can and should compete to be the most innovative, flexible and student-centered - not safe havens for the uninspired and unaccountable. He believes we should let them compete for the most effective, character-building teachers, hire them, and reward them.
If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children. He finds it beyond hypocritical that many of those who would refuse to allow public school parents to choose their child's school would never agree to force their own children into a school that did not work or was unsafe. They can make another choice. John McCain believes that is a fundamental and essential right we should honor for all parents.
As president, John McCain will pursue reforms that address the underlying cultural problems in our education system - a system that still seeks to avoid genuine accountability and responsibility for producing well-educated children.
John McCain will place parents and children at the center of the education process, empowering parents by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children. He believes all federal financial support must be predicated on providing parents the ability to move their children, and the dollars associated with them, from failing school.
McCain has a plan...just like Obama has one....
read about it on his website. And if you didn't turn off the TV every time he spoke, you would know he has a plan. LOL. What I don't want is the last TWO years, when the Democrats sat on their hands and did nothing while Freddie/Fannie ruined the economy. What I DON'T want is a socialist President and a democratic majority, and I will have NO part in bringing that about. For the first time in my LIFE I am voting a straight republican ticket.
McCain Resurgence Plan windfall for lenders.
Initially, when McCain announced his "new" mortgage buyout plan, it was simply a restatement of the existing provisions already authorizing the Treasury Department and Federal Housing Administration to purchase, restructure and guarantee mortgages. In fact, these provisions had been promoted and supported by Obama during the legislative process when they were included in the original legislation.
At first, the buyout would have purchased mortgages at their current devalued amount, meaning that the lenders would have to "recognize the loss" they had already suffered. Lenders were required to back only 90% of the original value and homeowners would have been required to share any increase in value with the government, reflecting shared responsibility.
Under McCain's "revised" plan, the treasury would pay FULL face value of mortgages, even though they are no longer worth that amount. He deleted the shared responsibility phrase, thus creating what amounts to a windfall for the banking industry, rewarding the most irresponsible lenders. Under this revision, banks receive full payment, even on artificially inflated values for the homes and assume no loss while tax payers take all the loss of the mortgage value and perhaps even end up losing more in the event that the housing values do not recover. Taxpayers would also not get any benefit should the houses increase in value.
Some lenders, voluntarily or as part of settlements, are working on solutions to the mortgage meltdown that modifying mortgages to help homeowners stay in their homes –WITHOUT costing taxpayers a dime. But if the McCain plan were in place, this process would stop because lenders would know they could always sell their mortgages at full face value to taxpayers.
So, contrary to sam's claims, O is simply promoting protection for the homeowners AND the taxpayer. This is not "punishment" of the lenders. This is an effort to hold the guilty parties responsible for their longstanding shady lending practices and ensure that THEY too shoulder the burden of the costs.
I am left wondering what the bum's rush is on this McCain plan. A mortgage bail-out should not be conceived, defined, proposed, debated or passed as part of another halting, frenetic political stunt designed to make McCain look like he knows what he is doing when it comes to addressing the economic woes of the nation. It requires careful, thourhgtful, informed consideration...the kind that can only take place AFTER the election and in the absence of underlying agendas aimed at rescuing a failing presidential campaign.
No, it says "versus" McCain which is the bush plan so obama is wayyy better duh!
nm
Why should we pay your mortgage?
Why on earth should the people who were smart enough not to jump on the bandwagon and buy a bigger house than they could afford give a 30% mortgage decrease to the people who went hog wild and spent above their means? I am not a homeowner, by choice, and I am totally against giving anyone a decrease on a mortgage that they agreed upon when they purchased their home. You make a mistake, you pay the consequences!
Mortgage
Somebody who cannot afford to buy a house should not buy a house, bedasue they do not want to lose out on the rent money.
There are people out there who buy a house, rent it out and expect the tenants to pay the mortgage. If something goes wrong, who pays the mortgage then?
Wrong speculations!
about that fixing your mortgage --
are they going to go back and fix everybody's mortgage that has already had their house foreclosed?
DH and I should get our mortgage fixed....
we have no debt but our home, have never missed a payment or been late, pay a few hundred dollars extra every month towards the principal, have never taken out a HELOC or used our equity (quite a bit) for anything and have a fantastic credit score. We should have our rate lowered below the 5% it is now for doing a great job. But no, we'll give a break to those who bought too much house, had to compete with the Jones' and who took out foolish loans to begin with.
The Mortgage Failure......
Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.
Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.
We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)
All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.
Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.
THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.
I don't think we should bail out anyone's mortgage.
Anyone who took out a mortgage and signed a contract to repay the loan and needs to do so. I don't care if they are illegal aliens, legal aliens, space aliens, or United States citizens.
That's how the mortgage cookie crumbles!
I am still against bailing out homeowners only!
the whole mortgage thing upsets me...sm
I have a subprime mortage and have had for over 3-1/2 years, but I make my payments on time every month. I can't even get a refinance to go through with almost $40,000 in equity in the house and only needing a loan for $85,500, as I put down a big down payment when I bought the house, but if I had an ARM or was in foreclosure there are programs that would put me in a new mortgage. So, here I am trying to take care of my bills, be a productive citizen, and I get no help. Makes lots of sense don't it.
Citi is my mortgage holder too. sm
They are just downright nasty when you call, can never post things on time, and then have the nerve to call and ask me when I am going to send my check when I have my bank statement in front of me saying they processed the check 3 days before they called me.
I am with you...LET THEM ALL TANK. Why should I give ANYBODY more of my hard earned money. And that includes Obama and his "redistribution of the wealth" schtick.
Disagree. Mortgage lenders FM/FM
and sub-prime mortgages did it, along with all the money certain senate leaders got for sticking up for for FM/FM. It's called GREED.
Dear Crabby, about the mortgage
Yes, American people were also greedy, but there were predatory lenders who got higher commissions for giving out those certain types of ARM mortgages. Do you know what an ARM is? Even if people qualified for conventional mortgages, the mortgage brokers didn't offer them because there was more money in it commission-wise for them if they brokered the ARM loans. We can thank Bush and the repubs because they did not want to regulate any of this.
You really should educate yourself.
Fugget about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Is that your claim to fame? aww shucks.
I have my mortgage throught CitiCorp.....
I wonder if I will see any of that largesse....NOT. Guess you have to be on the letter head. Oh well....LOL
No need to wonder...current mortgage bank crisis...
brought to you courtesy of greedy democrats on Congress and greedy Democrats at the top of Fannie Mae. The handwriting is on the wall. This one's on you. McCain saw it coming in 2005 and the dems shut him down. Well, we are reaping what they sowed. To quote Toby Keith...how do you like them now?
Rush just said the same thing....give everyone with a mortgage...sm
something like $75,000 to pay down their mortgage.
Do you agree with him also?
Yes, slimy mortgage companies who have no oversight....they don't ask anything
just selling 'em as fast they could and packed them all up into nice little derivatives to drive up the bubble and make fast money - at our expense.
You don't mind paying for an illegal mortgage?
nm
BT, I am sooo with you, we also finally paid the mortgage, the cars are ours....sm
and no more credit, bad debts and loans killed the economy and Wall Street. Just providing for our 3 kids and making ends meet is the daily challenge, but we have each other and a good extended family, I so hope that the good thing that comes out of this crisis is LESS MATERIALISM in this country, back to simpler living and being happy with less!
I'd be happy if they just reduced everybody's mortgage rate to a fixed 3%. sm
Then everyone is still responsible for the debt they took on, yet they're still getting a break. It would free up a couple hundred bucks a month for me, which I could then use elsewhere to stimulate the economy. Fewer foreclosures, banks are still getting their money.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be great if they paid your mortgage?
Apparently, you have no problem with charity if it begins at "home."
Wrong. Democrats are responsible for the mortgage meltdown, not Bush....
McCain tried to tell them in 2005...Dems blocked the regulation he begged for for Fannie/Freddie. But the Dems were too deep in the pockets...Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, Timothy Howard...all democrats, all walked away from fannie Mae with golden parachutes of millions...and we are left holding the bag. Fannie contributed more to Chris Dodd, Democratic head of Banking and COmmerce committe than any other senator in the past 20 years...followed closely by Barack Obama, who has only been IN the senate for 2 years...you do the math and follow the money. Democrats largely responsible for this. ANd you want to put one in the white house. Who wants to raise taxes in this financial crisis. What part of collapse of the economy don't you...and Mr. Obama...understand?
Plan B.
I can't imagine Bush releasing funds intended for the banks and insurance companies to be released to the auto industry without imposing more stringent conditions on the UAW workers than the republican caucus and parochial southern senators have already tried to enact. Gettelfinger stands behind his "bankruptcy is not an option" statement. If Bush does not step forward, looks like liquidation could be just around the corner. JMHO.
bad plan
I do believe our senators need to go focus on this crisis, but, a few hours spared for a debate is not a waste of time. The election is close and people need to hear what both of the candidates have to say.
More on O's plan for
What I had in mind was his proposal to eliminate capital gains taxes for start-up and small businesses, the making work pay tax credit to help reduce the double taxation paid by self-employed (that "special" self-employment tax you pay if you are an IC) and the proposed $250 million annual investment in the National Network of Business Incubators designed to increase the number and size of small businesses.
Here's part of the answer to the earlier question about small businesses and health insurance cost/fine. He proposes a Small Business Health Tax Credit program of up to 50% of the premiums they pay for health care benefits for their employees. If you want to read more, here's the link:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf
Under O's plan, you will keep more of it.
x
That's not a bad plan
But the article itself says that France does not have socialized medicine - it's something completely different, especially with the lowered malpractice insurance and the tuition-free universities. I don't see that anything like that would be set up in the US, do you? It's not a bad idea, though. Definitley something to think about.
LOL. I like that plan.
.
God has a plan for everything
His main objective is that none of us die but, as loving as He is, He gives us choices. Many of us will make the wrong choice and die for it.
health plan
I have an idea, why doesnt Bush stop waging immoral wars and use our tax dollars for something constructive and life saving, like health coverage for those who die each year without it? You know why I would love a universal health plan? Because I care about my brother and sister and I care about making every Americans life better. Of course, you conservatives care about no one but yourselves. You make a few bucks, buy a home in a gated community, take the other streets so you dont pass the ghetto..and yet you claim you are christian..that is the most hypocritical statement of all. Do you not realize if Jesus walked this earth today, he would be a liberal democrat, helping the poor, the starving, the sick, the homeless, accepting all. Im so glad Im a liberal democrat. I dont think I could look at myself in the mirror or get a good nights sleep knowing my ideology is actually harming America, not helping it one bit.
Obama's plan
I assume you watched both conventions????? I watched the Dems and now I'm watching the Pubs. I am an INDEPENDENT. I would support Obama were it not for my research of the church he has been associated with for 20 years. This church, in my humble opinion, belongs to an extreme, radical, racist group. We don't need that in the White House. With the exception of illegal immigration, he pretty much addressed all the things that I feel are important to the future of my children and grandchildren and were it not for his affiliation with his chosen church, I would probably vote for him. . At least he had the good sense to select a person as his running mate who actually might be "ready on day one" to lead this country.
Secondly, again in my humble opinion, McCain has a few screws loose rattling around upstairs. He answers every question, even about how many houses he owns, with something like, "well, the longest time I spent anywhere was when I was a POW." Other than that it has been all about bashing Obama and his not having "experience." Then look what he did. Picked a little-known female who has been abroad exactly once and tries to pass her off as "experienced." Truth: She is a female and her state is the second largest producer of oil. Bush governed the biggest oil producing state. Enjoying those prices at the pumps? To this point all the pub speakers have pushed McCain's war record. What????? Do we need more war? I think a peacemaker would be better.
Now, before anyone pounces on me, I support NEITHER of these candidates and NEITHER will receive my vote. Either way, the middle class Americans, to which I expect most MTs belong, lose. Our government will change when and if the majority of Americans quit using their heads as a hatrack for the Democrat and Republican parties, kick them out and bring back government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Won't happen this time but maybe next time won't be too late.
OK. Let's rephrase. How does JM's new plan
x
Obama's tax plan
First of all, let me say I was undecided on this election until yesterday. Obama's tax plan scares me to death. I heard him on an interview yesterday, and he said that the top 5% of the country could *afford to help out those less fortunate to us*, meaning those that make above $200,000. He also said that someone making under $45,000 would *probably* not have to pay income taxes, because all the tax revenue would be generated from the top 5% of the country, again, who could *afford* to help out his fellow man.
So, here's my question. If I work my BUTT off making a great living for my family, who the heck is he to say I have to share it? My husband and I put ourselves through school to get a good education for ourselves, searched for good jobs, worked more than one sometimes, and enjoy or standard of living, because we worked hard for it and EARNED it. How dare he suggest that I have to share that with ANYONE, just because they dont' have as much. We give to quite a few neighborhood organizations and national charities, we do not keep every penny for ourselves.
If he does get elected and puts this new plan in place, why would people work hard to make a good living if quite a bit chunk of it is going to be taken away? Why not just sit back, work as little as you want, stay under that $40,000 radar, not pay income taxes, and have the government give you some other *rich* guy's money because you don't have as much?
This really made my mind up for me. It's time this county taught some personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not think he is the one for the job!
if you plan on voting
you will need to keep things like OBAMA and OSAMA straight. The political system was based on the assumption that voters would know the difference between a tall black man running for president and a tall man in a sheet running for cover. Study up. Only a few more weeks . . . I'm betting you can do it.
Do either of the candidates have a plan
for this financial crisis that does not involve the taxpayers bailing out the US?
So how would this plan affect you?
If it doesn't apply to you, then nothing about your mortgage would change. How is that unfair to you? Would it be more fair to charge the taxpayers, including you, whether in you're arrears or not or owning a mortgage or not, the $700 billion dollars?
I don't get what about this is upsetting to you. You already have a better rate and your credit must be great. Any resolution to this problem should not result in someone making out better than before the problem started.
You are correct about his plan not being...sm
socialized medicine. I don't think the majority of people have insurance through their employers anymore. If you don't you will be insured based on what you can afford to pay, and you will keep your own doctor. Vermont already has such a plan and it works great.
His plan includes ---
He wants to provide coverage for everyone that needs it. If you have coverage already, then you keep it. If you don't have coverage, then you are able to buy the same coverage the federal employees have. He only wants to mandate that a family have coverage for their children and you can get it anywhere you want to.
My state already is using almost the same plan as....sm
Obama's and it seems to be working just fine.
He's changed his plan but yet again..
The McCain-Palin campaign has critized his tax plans as welfare, so Barack’s campaign has come back and tweaked it to add a work requirement. (They will materialize things out of thin air as needed to get elected.) This comes from the New Hampshire Union Leader in reply.
Obama Tax Plan
I haven't been here for a while, and if this has already been posted below somewhere, I apologize for duplicating it.
The following link will take you to a site that will show you how much money Barack Obama will save you on taxes, compared to John McCain. (Remember, McCain will be taxing your health insurance benefits for the first time in American history.) Depending on your income, there is quite a difference between the two plans.
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
|
