Obama looking at taking over mortgage companies Freddie and Fannie

[mandym]

.....The other problem is that banks, fearing looming regulations from the Dodd-Frank financial law and leery of the weakening economy aren’t keen to make loans of any kind, especially when returns are minimal.

The dribbles from the White House on housing have hinted at some big ideas: having the government hold and lease foreclosed homes and even having the government fully take over busted and bailed out mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The trial balloon in today’s New York Times puts the earlier leaks in perspective. The idea is to have the government offer to refinance the mortgages of millions of Americans whose credit scores prevent them from grabbing the lower-than-5-percent commonly available to qualified buyers today.

The administration is envisioning an $85 billion instant stimulus as those with poor credit see their rates drop dramatically. But to do it, the government would likely need to take over Fannie and Freddie......

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ould-be-key-to-obama-jobs-plan/#ixzz1W8aqkcKl

 

[targus]

How long before it morphs into a welfare program providing everyone that doesn't want to work with a free house courtesy of the taxpayers?

 

[exscentric]

And their credit reports are poor why? What will transform them into great credit report people in their financial lives? Nothing, and the gov. will be dealing with another mess of their own making.

However they will own tons of real estate to back their now questionable debt, might make the Japanese/Chinese feel more at ease.

 

[billwald]

The govt could have paid off every residential mortgage and every student loan for half a trillion but then you all would scream "unfair, socialism." Me, my house has been paid off for 30 years but it would have been fine with me.

 

[John Toppass]

The govt could have paid off every residential mortgage and every student loan for half a trillion but then you all would scream "unfair, socialism." Me, my house has been paid off for 30 years but it would have been fine with me.

The problem is that the govt does not have the half trillion dollars you say it would take. In fact, the govt does not have any money, it is the wage earners and taxpayer that have the money. The govt has fooled most people into thinking that they should have first dibs at the assets of others.

 

[Eric B]

There is sure an awful lot of fixation on all these supposed people who "don't want to work", (and this isn't even really connected to Fannie and Freddie).

Trying to look up some data to see how many people there really are who are out of work, and remaining that way (out of a sense of "entitlement", presumably), I was not able to find anything so far, and the most I saw was several articles from the conservative heritage.org site on the "70 means-tested welfare programs" of the government. (with commenters just parroting Reagan's rhetoric about people walking in front of them buying steaks with food stamps while they only have beans, or whatever). I could not even find yet a list of what all these are, except that it involves "six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education."
But all of these are not just for people not working. The program that seemed to fit that the most was AFDC, which in the '96 reforms, was replaced by TANF (these apart of HHR).

Through all the incessant cries about all these "lazy nonworkers" getting all the money, there was actually a drop of assistance by ’07-08 to nearly a quarter of what it was in the ’96 reforms. (It has gone slightly back up in the past couple of years, due to the economic crisis, of course, with the poverty and unemployment rates going back up a bit). You can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

And of course, these figures do not tell us why each of these people are in the program —whether they are "able-bodied" and yet "lazy", or other more legitimate problems. TANF has more limits than AFDC did.

So this looks to me like an attempt to deflect the focus onto almost imaginary or at least greatly overexaggerated scapegoats. Reading a couple of books recently (including the one by John Of Japan's brother) made it clear that those who hold economic power historically have often used a "divide and conquer" approach to the masses that way. Again, every time some [mismanaged] institution goes under, people are blaming "social programs" or related policies, and almost nothing else.

To bring it back on topic, the mortgage crisis is not about people who won't work, but rather the working class (and not even necessarily the lower end of that) not being able to quite make ends meet, and thus desiring the loans.
Unless, one holds that to truly be "working" means pulling oneself all the way up and becoming an owner (in which case they would not have the financial difficulty). Anything less is "lazy", and thus deserving to not afford anything. The comment on another thread that "owners" should have "all the profits", seems to go along with this. But how, even idealistically, can everyone be an owner?

 

[carpro]

How long before it morphs into a welfare program providing everyone that doesn't want to work with a free house courtesy of the taxpayers?

Obama has a lot in common with government.

Neither have a clue about how to run a business. Any business.

 

[mandym]

There is sure an awful lot of fixation on all these supposed people who "don't want to work", (and this isn't even really connected to Fannie and Freddie).

Trying to look up some data to see how many people there really are who are out of work, and remaining that way (out of a sense of "entitlement", presumably), I was not able to find anything so far, and the most I saw was several articles from the conservative heritage.org site on the "70 means-tested welfare programs" of the government. (with commenters just parroting Reagan's rhetoric about people walking in front of them buying steaks with food stamps while they only have beans, or whatever). I could not even find yet a list of what all these are, except that it involves "six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education."
But all of these are not just for people not working. The program that seemed to fit that the most was AFDC, which in the '96 reforms, was replaced by TANF (these apart of HHR).

Through all the incessant cries about all these "lazy nonworkers" getting all the money, there was actually a drop of assistance by ’07-08 to nearly a quarter of what it was in the ’96 reforms. (It has gone slightly back up in the past couple of years, due to the economic crisis, of course, with the poverty and unemployment rates going back up a bit). You can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

And of course, these figures do not tell us why each of these people are in the program —whether they are "able-bodied" and yet "lazy", or other more legitimate problems. TANF has more limits than AFDC did.

So this looks to me like an attempt to deflect the focus onto almost imaginary or at least greatly overexaggerated scapegoats. Reading a couple of books recently (including the one by John Of Japan's brother) made it clear that those who hold economic power historically have often used a "divide and conquer" approach to the masses that way. Again, every time some [mismanaged] institution goes under, people are blaming "social programs" or related policies, and almost nothing else.

To bring it back on topic, the mortgage crisis is not about people who won't work, but rather the working class (and not even necessarily the lower end of that) not being able to quite make ends meet, and thus desiring the loans.
Unless, one holds that to truly be "working" means pulling oneself all the way up and becoming an owner (in which case they would not have the financial difficulty). Anything less is "lazy", and thus deserving to not afford anything. The comment on another thread that "owners" should have "all the profits", seems to go along with this. But how, even idealistically, can everyone be an owner?

Actually it is about those folks being able to obtain mortgages who would not have been considered credit worthy except for programs that were forced down the throats of banks. People not wanting to work has nothing to do with it. Giving out loans to high risk people who obtained loans beyond their means. A common problem is variable mortgages that have large balloon payments at the 5th year. When the market is flooded with people who never should have had these loans to begin with them we get to where we are today.

and if I remember correctly there were a few Repubs who tried to warn about this problem before it happened and several lefties like Frank would get mad at such a suggestion.

 

[righteousdude2]

And Does This Surprise Anyone?

What is there that Obama hasn't tried to "take over?"

Of course, everyone may be a winner with this one. And if it fails, like other mortgage companies, Obama is left holding the bag, all the way to the failed bank system, and to the polls in Novemeber 2012!