• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An August Surprise from Obama?

VanceMack said:
Oh...I dont know...something about a natural consequence of violating societies laws-losing voting rights and firearm ownership. Not my law really...but...something the states seem to feel strongly about...
Click to expand...

some states do, some don't. voting rights should be restored after parole is finished.
 
apdst said:
Because if there are enough of them, they can elect some real assholes into the government. This is one of those common sense things.
Click to expand...

that's pretty funny too.
 
MaggieD said:
The nonviolent crimes caveat would fly with me okay. Misdemeanors? Yeah, I agree. I don't think that's an issue though. It's "convicted felons."



Yikes! Go ahead, pick the one crime (pedophilia) that's a crime as well as an incurable addiction. That's not fair. ;-) To answer your question, "Uhhhhhhh, hmmmmmmm, no."
Click to expand...

I just picked a criminal class that has a post time-served stigma.
 
liblady said:
some states do, some don't. voting rights should be restored after parole is finished.
Click to expand...

Thats the beauty of opinions on issues like this. Get enough of the people in your state to agree and you can change the laws. Unfortunately a significant number of people will disagree. That doesnt make them evil hearted bastards BTW...just...people of differing opinions on the issue. like us.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
As Chappy has already pointed out, it was just a rumor. (See post #24) Still, it wouldn't have been a bad idea. In fact, if done correctly it would actually work. Think of it this way...

The opposition has been complaining that Fannie and Freddie got off the hook for issuing all those bad loans.

The majority of the loans still out there reportedly are held by Fannie and Freddi.

Helping homeowners stay in their homes would certainly help the economy and may even raise home values over time.

It would eliminate another fixture in this economic mess from getting another government bailout.

Frankly, unless others who are more economic/accounting savy than I can think of a downside to this, I see the "rumored" report as a good thing...assuming it ever becomes reality.
 
MrVicchio said:
An August Surprise from Obama? | Analysis & Opinion |

But the real key part of this bribe for votes?

Obama's contemplating using the Federal Gov't to bribe voters to keep Dem's in power, the ultimate slushfund! (Yes, I'm aware both parties have done this to one extent or another for decades however, scale is what is important here people. Scale and the damage this could do).
Click to expand...


Get serious.... if he were truly trying to bribe voters, it would be an October surprise. There is zero electoral upside in an August surprise, as by election time all we would be dealing with is either 1) the memory or 2) the political backlash. If this were true (which is dubious), it is not designed to buy votes. Please apply intelligence to future allegations.
 
upsideguy said:
Get serious.... if he were truly trying to bribe voters, it would be an October surprise. There is zero electoral upside in an August surprise, as by election time all we would be dealing with is either 1) the memory or 2) the political backlash. If this were true (which is dubious), it is not designed to buy votes. Please apply intelligence to future allegations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, negating the mortgages of millions of people has no political calculation at all. You are SO right.




Not.
 
MrVicchio said:
Actually, it was a rather valid comparison.

Voting is power, do you want to give Felon's power?
Click to expand...

Power to what? Vote for whatever jerk-off they want? Yeah, lots of power there. Lol. You're being silly. Give a logical answer as to why a person who has served their time should not be allowed to vote. Then we'll talk. The rhetoric of 'giving them power' is nothing more than 'you have no answer for us'.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
As Chappy has already pointed out, it was just a rumor. (See post #24) Still, it wouldn't have been a bad idea. In fact, if done correctly it would actually work. Think of it this way...

The opposition has been complaining that Fannie and Freddie got off the hook for issuing all those bad loans.

The majority of the loans still out there reportedly are held by Fannie and Freddi.

Helping homeowners stay in their homes would certainly help the economy and may even raise home values over time.

It would eliminate another fixture in this economic mess from getting another government bailout.

Frankly, unless others who are more economic/accounting savy than I can think of a downside to this, I see the "rumored" report as a good thing...assuming it ever becomes reality.
Click to expand...

Downsides:

1. Subjective or fraudulant appraisals.

2. Moral Hazard.

3. Picking winners and losers. We did not bail out the knuckheads that bought stocks at their peak of the dot com bubble.

4. This will add to the federal debt.
 
Objective Voice said:
As Chappy has already pointed out, it was just a rumor. (See post #24) Still, it wouldn't have been a bad idea. In fact, if done correctly it would actually work. Think of it this way...

1 -- The opposition has been complaining that Fannie and Freddie got off the hook for issuing all those bad loans.

2 -- The majority of the loans still out there reportedly are held by Fannie and Freddi.

3 -- Helping homeowners stay in their homes would certainly help the economy and may even raise home values over time.

4 -- It would eliminate another fixture in this economic mess from getting another government bailout.

Frankly, unless others who are more economic/accounting savy than I can think of a downside to this, I see the "rumored" report as a good thing...assuming it ever becomes reality.
Click to expand...

Just another way of redistributing wealth. I don't have a mortgage on my home. It's lost 25% of value. Pay me. Why should I pay you because you have a mortgage? I don't get how your #1 and #2 above are impacted in any way but negative by forgiving debt. #3? Why will it help the economy. People who are in foreclosure have more discretionary income than you and I. They don't pay their mortgage and live free until eviction. Nice. Why are we so averse to letting the market solve problems? Votes. Your #4? What bailout would it avoid? Just going to a different pocket.

Maybe I've taken your comments out of context. But I sure fail to see how this "let's run it up the flagpole and salute' idea has any merit whatsoever. I also think it would be the kiss of death to Democrats. (Hey, maybe it's worth it.)
 
MaggieD said:
Just another way of redistributing wealth. I don't have a mortgage on my home. It's lost 25% of value. Pay me. Why should I pay you because you have a mortgage? I don't get how your #1 and #2 above are impacted in any way but negative by forgiving debt. #3? Why will it help the economy. People who are in foreclosure have more discretionary income than you and I. They don't pay their mortgage and live free until eviction. Nice. Why are we so averse to letting the market solve problems? Votes. Your #4? What bailout would it avoid? Just going to a different pocket.

Maybe I've taken your comments out of context. But I sure fail to see how this "let's run it up the flagpole and salute' idea has any merit whatsoever. I also think it would be the kiss of death to Democrats. (Hey, maybe it's worth it.)
Click to expand...

Let's look at all four suggestions I've made and see if we can find some rationale or middle ground here without the political rhetoric.

1 -- The opposition has been complaining that Fannie and Freddie got off the hook for issuing all those bad loans.
Click to expand...

By "got off the hook" I mean they haven't sufferred the wrath of having any new federal regulations impossed on them. As most have acknowledged, the new Financial Reform legistlations did not include Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Why that was I don't know, but because both mortgage entities reportedly are carrying the majority of the toxic mortgage debt out there, I think it's fair to say they are not getting away scott free. They're losing money every day a mortgage isn't paid whether a homeowner files for bankruptcy or allows foreclosure to happen. Each action either forces Fannie or Freddie to take on a payment schedule that very likely is far less than what the original mortgage was for or causes them to lose those mortgage payments altogether if the courts allow their mortgage debt to be written off. So, since it's an inevitable lose-lose for Fannie and Freddie either way, wouldn't it make more sense for Fannie and Freddie to modify mortgages with those homeowners who ARE willing to pay their mortgage than to force people into bankruptcy? Mortgage modification generally last from 6-18 months. Those who want out of their mortgage will either file for bankruptcy or allow foreclosure to happen and just rent somewhere else or start the home ownership process anew a few years (7-10) down the line. So, for Fannie and Freddie not to work with homeowers isn't a smart financial move on their parts.

2 -- The majority of the loans still out there reportedly are held by Fannie and Freddi.
Click to expand...

We've already covered this above. But imagine if you will one mortgage at $950/month. Multiply that by 1 million. Now add in an average of 8% interest. Doesn't take a mathmatician to figure out that's ALOT of money Fannie and Freddie potentially are losing each time a homeowner mails in their keys and allows their home to be foreclosed on or files for bankruptcy.

3 -- Helping homeowners stay in their homes would certainly help the economy and may even raise home values over time.
Click to expand...
You stated that your home has lost 25% of its value. Why is that? I assume your neighborhood still has a sound economic infrastructure, i.e., stores, shops, manufacturing, banks, technology centers, etc. With that assumption, the only conclusion one can make for the decline in your home's value is that your neighbor's homes have been appraised downward. As such, I assume many of the homes in your neighborhood have been left vacant since the housing bubble burst. Here where I live, the housing bubble hasn't affected my city that much. In fact, we're experiencing the exact opposite! I have five subdivisions going up around my neighborhood as I type this. And last year, my home was appraised at ... well, let's just say I'd make money if I sold my house today. So, if your home has lost value since the housing bubble, I can only assume it's because you have alot of vacate homes around you that have been appraised downward. Get people back into those homes who will pay their mortgages even at a reduced modified rate and I guarantee your home's value will increase over time. And where you have vibrant home ownership, you have property taxes. And when you have property taxes being paid you also have consumers buying goods and services. Therefore, your local economy feels the positive impact homeowership brings...just as it feels the negative impact of not having homeowners stay in their homes.

4 -- It would eliminate another fixture in this economic mess from getting another government bailout.
Click to expand...

Taking the above into account, it stands to reason that as long as Fannie and Freddie modify many of the mortgages they own even if they are "made" to do so, the taxpayers won't have to bail them out because in time they'd still make money as opposed to continuing to have homeowners mail in their keys and let foreclosure overtake them or file for bankruptcy.

Think about it...

For the record, I'm not on Fannie or Freddie's side here. I'm just giving what I view as a practical solution to a very ugly situation.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Let's look at all four suggestions I've made and see if we can find some rationale or middle ground here without the political rhetoric.

By "got off the hook" I mean they haven't sufferred the wrath of having any new federal regulations impossed on them. As most have acknowledged, the new Financial Reform legistlations did not include Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Why that was I don't know, but because both mortgage entities reportedly are carrying the majority of the toxic mortgage debt out there, I think it's fair to say they are not getting away scott free. They're losing money every day a mortgage isn't paid whether a homeowner files for bankruptcy or allows foreclosure to happen. Each action either forces Fannie or Freddie to take on a payment schedule that very likely is far less than what the original mortgage was for or causes them to lose those mortgage payments altogether if the courts allow their mortgage debt to be written off. So, since it's an inevitable lose-lose for Fannie and Freddie either way, wouldn't it make more sense for Fannie and Freddie to modify mortgages with those homeowners who ARE willing to pay their mortgage than to force people into bankruptcy? Mortgage modification generally last from 6-18 months. Those who want out of their mortgage will either file for bankruptcy or allow foreclosure to happen and just rent somewhere else or start the home ownership process anew a few years (7-10) down the line. So, for Fannie and Freddie not to work with homeowers isn't a smart financial move on their parts.
Click to expand...

OV, working with homeowners is very different from forgiving loan principle. Lenders ARE working with homeowners. Just blanket forgiveness -- well, I fail to see what that accomplishes. It sends a terrible message to those who are "breaking even" and bustin' their butts.

We've already covered this above. But imagine if you will one mortgage at $950/month. Multiply that by 1 million. Now add in an average of 8% interest. Doesn't take a mathmatician to figure out that's ALOT of money Fannie and Freddie potentially are losing each time a homeowner mails in their keys and allows their home to be foreclosed on or files for bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Adjust their interest rate. They're already doing that, in fact.

You stated that your home has lost 25% of its value. Why is that? I assume your neighborhood still has a sound economic infrastructure, i.e., stores, shops, manufacturing, banks, technology centers, etc. With that assumption, the only conclusion one can make for the decline in your home's value is that your neighbor's homes have been appraised downward. As such, I assume many of the homes in your neighborhood have been left vacant since the housing bubble burst. Here where I live, the housing bubble hasn't affected my city that much. In fact, we're experiencing the exact opposite! I have five subdivisions going up around my neighborhood as I type this. And last year, my home was appraised at ... well, let's just say I'd make money if I sold my house today. So, if your home has lost value since the housing bubble, I can only assume it's because you have alot of vacate homes around you that have been appraised downward. Get people back into those homes who will pay their mortgages even at a reduced modified rate and I guarantee your home's value will increase over time. And where you have vibrant home ownership, you have property taxes. And when you have property taxes being paid you also have consumers buying goods and services. Therefore, your local economy feels the positive impact homeowership brings...just as it feels the negative impact of not having homeowners stay in their homes.
Click to expand...

They've lost money because there aren't enough viable buyers. No longer can entry-level buyers buy with no money down, negative amortization loans, poor credit, stated income loans, 3% down loans, and all of the creative baloney that allowed people to live beyond their means. And most of them unintentionally, I might add. I'm all FOR assisting these people. But simply forgiving amounts owed over the WORTH of their homes isn't the answer, as far as I'm concerned. It sends a message to everybody else -- why pay your bills? The government will bail you out.

Taking the above into account, it stands to reason that as long as Fannie and Freddie modify many of the mortgages they own even if they are "made" to do so, the taxpayers won't have to bail them out because in time they'd still make money as opposed to continuing to have homeowners mail in their keys and let foreclosure overtake them or file for bankruptcy.

Think about it...

For the record, I'm not on Fannie or Freddie's side here. I'm just giving what I view as a practical solution to a very ugly situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't sense you're taking sides. I think we just have a disagreement on the value of this kind of program. The one thing I will say is that banks have been just absolutely snails when it comes to modifying mortgages. And even in selling foreclosed properties. There are buyers who are willing to buy these properties -- and banks unwilling to move fast enough to capture them.

I'll go back to my original post on this thread -- that if the government were to enact this kind of program, the backlash from those who PAY their mortgages, who DON'T get forgiven part of their debt will be, I think, overwhelmingly negative. At the polls.
 
If they were to do this, why would any pay their mortgage in the future??
 
American said:
All this spending and not a peep from the left about Michelle's $375K trip? Who paid for that trip?

Spanish police close public beach for Michelle Obama's £250k Spanish holiday | Mail Online
Click to expand...

Different thread topic...try to stay on point, please.

MrVicchio said:
If they were to do this, why would any pay their mortgage in the future??
Click to expand...

Most loan modifications are a 1-time thing throughout the life of the mortgage loan w/the same homeowner. So, in this case, every homeowner who has a troubled home mortgage and qualifies for a loan modification would only get to do this once.

Now, that doesn't mean that if they sold their home and got a new home loan they couldn't request a loan modification in the future. The odds of that happening, however, are remote. I seriously doubt home buyers would go that route more than once over the life of two or more 30-year mortgages. Most of us have all we can handle with just one home mortgage.

MaggieD,

I'm not advocating forgiving anyone's home loan. I hope you didn't think that's what I was suggesting anyway. There are many economist who agree that where Fannie & Freddie are concerned, it is better for everyone all around if troubled homeowners are allowed to modify their mortgage loans than if the Fannie & Freddie had no money coming in from mortgages at all. If you can keep people in their homes it a good thing for all concerned. Mortgage interest rates are being readjusted, but not nearly enough of them are at this point. But yes, it is a key component to easing the problems within the housing market overall.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
MaggieD, I'm not advocating forgiving anyone's home loan. I hope you didn't think that's what I was suggesting anyway. There are many economist who agree that where Fannie & Freddie are concerned, it is better for everyone all around if troubled homeowners are allowed to modify their mortgage loans than if the Fannie & Freddie had no money coming in from mortgages at all. If you can keep people in their homes it a good thing for all concerned. Mortgage interest rates are being readjusted, but not nearly enough of them are at this point. But yes, it is a key component to easing the problems within the housing market overall.
Click to expand...

I misunderstood you, Objective Voice. I don't disagree with anything you've said right here. And, further, I reSOUNDINGLY agree that not NEARLY enough of them have been re-adjusted. I'm with ya'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom