President Bush signed a massive mortgage relief bill that will help hundreds of thousands of homeowners refinance their unaffordable mortgages into fixed rate government backed loans rather than lose their homes to foreclosure. The bill also put tighter reigns on Freddie and Fannie, says the Associated Press.
Bush had originally threatened to veto the bill over the inclusion of $3.9 billion in “neighborhood grants” which he claimed would benefit the lenders who caused the mortgage meltdown, but relented as the credit crisis deepened.
Bloomberg says that the big losers in the bill may be Freddie and Fannie shareholders, who could lose their equity if the US Treasury uses its new authority to take over the GSEs.
Bush signs housing bill to provide mortgage relief [AP]
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
More From Consumerist
-
Court Halts Alleged “Forensic Audit” Scam Targeting Troubled Homeowners
-
Chase Is Now Surprising People With Mortgage Adjustments
-
Fannie & Freddie To Let Some Underwater Homeowners Walk Away From Their Mortgages
-
Homeowners Impacted By Hurricane Sandy Could Get Some Mortgage Relief Soon
-
Feds Now Letting Big Banks Review Their Own Foreclosures For Errors
@Bladefist: I agree with what you’ve just said!
@stinerman: ooo Bad guess. I live in Missouri. Swing state. And I live in the liberal side (Kansas City) (Saint Louis is red).
Your logic is right, but mine can be too. My vote means so little, that the only way I can feel important is by canceling out my friends vote for Obama lol.
@Bladefist: You really think Bush was right on the war then you mention economics?
He so vastly underestimated the domestic economic consequences of his actions we may be dealing with the repercussions for the next century.
Even so the breath of this loan is small in the scope of the crisis 5-10 billion isn’t even a month of Iraq. It affects 400k people and does not renegotiate the price of their home but rather changes the terms of the mortgage. So they still have to pay back the full amount and hopefully this will hit people who can mostly afford their home but the not an adjustable mortgage.
Since the scope is small,400k people and the price is low and it is aimed homeowners who can afford their homes but not their mortgages Bush decided it was a good idea.
There are of course 2 other factors. This is an election year and Bush has to take the last of his political power and make things better for mccain. He may have also seen that the lenders are foreclosing on homes anyway,which was his primary objection to the bill in the first place.
@Puck: [consumerist.com]
He shoots, he scores…
@Bladefist: Republicans in the last 8 years with free reign of the country have been the most radical political group I’ve seen.
The Republican base has been completely gutless in challenging this. Bigger government, radical fiscal policy, secret policing, reduction of constitutional powers, reckless spending are now hallmarks of the party. People like Ron Paul point this out and are ‘radical’ in stating this isn’t the way the GOP should behave.
The bailout by Bush and the new congress actually seems like a fairly reasonable and conservative way to provide a modest dent in the economic crisis while helping homeowner and business alike. I’m glad at least one ‘major’ policy decision seems to be based on Keynesian policies as opposed to the laissez-faire policies that were a bad idea 100 years ago 30 years ago and still are now.
@Techguy1138 <– terrorist. traitor. eats babies.
I have to agree with Bladefist et al on this one, the market will, eventually, correct itself. I’d still be interested if anyone has any ideas re my previous comment:@crabbyman6:
@Wormfather is Wormfather: errr
Commenters are not moderators
If you see a commenter violating these rules, email moderator@consumerist.com. Posting only to point out someone is breaking the rules is distracting and unnecessary. So no rules lawyering or “junior moderating” in the threads. Don’t try to argue the fine points of how your comments are just within the rules. Always post with the spirit of the comments code and not just its letter.
@crabbyman6: I always appreciate some good irony
Curses for not previewing my comment. The comment I’m referring to is this.
@trogam:
He was against it, but changed his mind after the wording and conditions of the bill were changed.
Sorry to interfere with the Bush-bashing.
@Bladefist: I posted something earlier but I guess the Gawker Goblins ate it, which seems to happen from time to time.
Personally I think it’s rather sad and depressing that these people were bailed out. I thought this was a perfect time to get rid of the leeches like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I wonder if I stop paying my student loans if the government will just pay for them too?
But the mischief is done and the only relief for the American people is to shorten sail, seem down the top mast and prepare for a hurricane.
There seem to be two schools of thought here:
1) Great idea, this should have been done earlier!
2) Bad idea, why are you wasting my tax dollars bailing out these deadbeats?
The reality is that the average homeowner who isn’t in trouble from this mess is getting screwed either way.
The real options are: 1) Your tax dollars are spent helping subsidize FRMs for people who can’t afford their mortgage, or 2) Your home value continues to plummet as foreclosures mount, your community gets partially abandoned, etc.
These are the two realities. I HATE the idea of my tax bucks bailing out homeowners and lenders who were irresponsible. But I hate worse my neighborhood filling with vacant, unkempt, crime-attracting homes, selling for pennies on the dollar and driving dowm MY home’s value.
It’s six of one, half-dozen of another. The reality is that the average homeowner is affected either way – it’s just a matter of how you’d RATHER be affected.
@InfiniTrent: exactly. personally, i’m for it b/c i’d rather have a neighborhood of owners than a neighborhood of renters. even irresponsible owners tend to keep their houses in better shape than absentee landlords.
@Bladefist: This is one issue where liberals and conservatives seem to come together. The only reason Congress and the President are doing anything at all is because of the truly greedy – the banks – not the homeowners. The homeowners only get help because it helps the damn banks, who should have been allowed to take their lumps. I hope the next President (please, God, let it be Obama) unleashes a legion of regulators on the banking industry – God only knows they can use all the oversight and direction they can get, and then some. From here on, anyone in that industry who even implies that they can be trusted to self-regulate should be flogged.
I’m so glad we no longer have any financial responsibility in this country at all! All we have to do is give the government all of our money and they take care of everything! Freedom is great! Oh, wait…
@randombob:
Agreed. Let the entire market fucking fail. That way, the idiots lose and have to face the consequences of their stupidity, and people like me who are unable to afford housing because of inflated prices and what not can finally get into a house and stop paying crazy rent prices while getting nothing in return.
Basically, all responsible renters would just switch places with these irresponsible owners. As an added bonus, all of the shitty apartment management places that I’ve had to deal with over the years get fucked out of tons of money when their renters don’t pay up due to their continuing stupidity!
@wgrune:
I don’t think ANYONE thinks that Obama can fix everything by this time next year. No one I’ve ever spoken to has suggested that. The amount of damage done by this administration alone will take YEARS to fix. Look at the Iraq fucking war dude. That’s going to take at least 2 years to get straight, assuming that we follow the minimum timeline that Iraq and Obama (and now McCain, how convenient) are suggesting is appropriate.
Obama is a hope for many people that things will change, but shit, even he says it’s going to take a goddamn long time.
You must hate America with the way you talk about the future president.
Great photo of a sullen looking Bush. I do not like him.
@mariospants: Also keep in mind at that some point you’ll have to think about the North American Union.
It appears that few of you have actually read the terms of the bill.
How about doing that before griping ?
Approx. 2.8 million Americans are facing foreclosure.
This bill will rescue a small %.
Even then homeowners have to show proof they can afford to keep their homes.
I’m shocked by the selfish and ignorant remarks made on this thread.
I’m not even a raging lib and I can see the benefits of this bill passing.
@Bladefist:
Another illogical, fluff response from Bladefist. You make this way too easy.
@Copperplum:
Yes, there are a number of terms and conditions that the homeowners must adhere to. For that, I’m only slightly less pissed. Why? Because the ongoing “mortgage crisis” is the end result of enormous greed and stupidity on the part of both buyers and lenders. Now *both* are being afforded the chance to make changes to the original terms of their contracts to avoid feeling the pinch of those damned pesky consequences.
There’s something patently wrong with a system/bill/plan that effectively rewards greed and ignorance/stupidity. Taxpayer money will finance this effort to reduce personal and institutional responsibility for making prudent, logical, and well-considered decisions. People who bought homes they couldn’t afford without shady ARMs should be held accountable for those actions, even if it means they lose the house. The banks should be held responsible for the bad loans they’ve made. Without accountability, people/institutions don’t learn. Without the experience of consequences, we can’t possibly hope that this exact situation won’t develop again in the future. Bailouts provide no incentive for anything to be done differently the next time around.
Maybe my anger is selfish. I’m angry about this development because I’d rather see a system that rewards responsibility, rather than the reverse. My husband and I did our research when we bought our home in June. We were offered a $400K mortgage, when clearly we could only afford to buy in the $160-$180K range. We bought a house we could afford. We avoided the trap of interest only or ARMs and opted for a fixed rate. We had a (very) small down payment. Where’s my reward for doing everything right? Nobody’s going to drop my interest rate, or write my loan down to 90% of the value of our home. (I guess that’s were “selfishness” comes in) Yet people who bought *waaaaaay* out of their budget and who didn’t know their ass from their elbow as far as mortgages go are going to get help they don’t deserve. Pardon me, but I think I’m allowed to have a problem with that.
I do lean left, but I don’t think that being moderate-to-slightly liberal has anything to do with my crazy, idealistic wish that everyone could just take responsibility for their actions–regardless of the outcomes.
Well I’m glad I got a loan I could afford and didn’t run amok with credit card/auto/home loans. So…where is my reward? Oh, my tax dollars are going to go help the idiots that can’t manage their money? I’m so glad.
@xkevin108x:
What’s funny is people are SO against government healthcare, but it’s a-ok if we let them manage our mortgages, social security, taxes, and everything in-between.
@crabbyman6: there was nothing in my comment that moderated, I simply posted a link. Nothing inferred or implied.
Well the problem here is that MANY mortgage brokers are completely lying scumsuckers. Forget just the banks.
So even though I’m completely middle of the road politically, I see how many people got screwed over by banks and it is just that they get 2nd chance.
I actually have to sue a Mortgage broker and the lenders for predatory lending over the loan they gave my Mother who recently had a stroke.
When the person you’re giving the refi loan to is nearly blind, partially paralyzed and drolling, MAYBE just maybe they don’t understand what docs they’re signing.
::copperplum:: blood pressure rising…
off to kickbox.