1
   

Bush's plan for aiding homeowners is less than it appears

 
 
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 09:45 am
Bush's plan for aiding homeowners is less than it appears
By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007

WASHINGTON ?- President Bush on Friday unveiled his plan to address homeowners who face foreclosure in the nation's credit crunch and housing slump.

The plan was announced days before Congress returns from its August recess with housing issues high on its agenda. The proposals, however, duplicate efforts already under way by Congress and other federal agencies, would help at most 21 percent of the homeowners facing foreclosures and would do little to help areas in which inflated real estate prices are a problem.

Bush called on Democrats to approve a modernization of the Federal Housing Administration, which passed the House of Representatives last year with bipartisan support but was quashed by Senate Republicans.

He promised to require greater disclosure from lenders, a move on which federal bank regulators already have provided guidance. He promised to get tough with unscrupulous mortgage brokers, but they're largely regulated on the state level. And during a briefing Friday, a senior administration official acknowledged that the plan would do little to help states with high real estate prices, such as California.

That's because more than half of California homeowners carry mortgages that still are well above the higher FHA loan limits in the modernization bill.

What, then, does the Bush plan do? Here are some answers:

Q: How many borrowers with sub-prime loans ?- those given to homeowners with the weakest credit histories ?- will the plan reach?

A: The Federal Housing Administration expects to have refinanced 100,000 sub-prime homeowners with adjustable-rate loans in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. It expects to refinance another 140,000 next year through its FHASecure, a new name for the refinancing it's already doing.

Q: Does that cover most of the problem loans?

A: Not even close. The administration admits that it'll be able to reach, in a best-case scenario, 480,000 qualified sub-prime borrowers by the end of 2009. But it thinks that 600,000 or 700,000 will qualify for help.

Housing advocates expect 2.2 million or more foreclosures tied to the sub-prime meltdown. The administration thinks that two-thirds of the sub-prime loans that were issued in 2005 and 2006 ?- when lending standards weakened significantly ?- were exotic adjustable-rate loans with low teaser rates that will reset to much higher rates late this year and next year. Housing groups say 81 percent were. Whichever number is correct, the worst is still ahead on foreclosures.

Q: Isn't the president's call for Congress to pass a modernization bill for the FHA a good thing?

A: Yes. But the bill introduced by the administration last year ?- modified and passed by the House with broad support ?- died in the Senate because Bush and Republican senators didn't fight for it. Had it passed, "we could have helped more people," one administration official said.

The failed bill included several items that Bush advocated Friday, including allowing the FHA to charge a risk premium, so that borrowers with good credit pay less to borrow and spottier borrowers more.

Q: Who needs the help the most?

A: States such as California and New York and areas such as South Florida and Las Vegas, where inflated real estate prices are falling. Modernization would increase the FHA's maximum loan levels from $362,000 to $417,000, which could help another 60,000 sub-prime borrowers. But this figure is still below California's median home price.

Q: What happens to high-price markets in the plan?

Many borrowers in markets that are seeing the biggest price corrections won't qualify for FHA help if they lack the required 3 percent of equity in their homes. Many homeowners in these markets now have new houses that are worth less than their outstanding loans.

"A lot of them will be underwater. That's the problem," said Ellen Harnick, senior policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending, an advocacy group in Durham, N.C.

Q: The president promised tax help to troubled borrowers. What's this about?

A: Bush supported a plan by Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. She proposes not taxing the portion of a home loan forgiven by lenders when a troubled mortgage is being restructured. Most profit from a home sale isn't taxed, but when a loan goes bad, the portion the lender forgives and agrees not to collect is taxed as income.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 425 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 07:36 pm
I'm not sure why people continue to listen to Bush and believe what he says. Bush said after Katrina: "We will stay as long as it takes."(to reconstruct New Orleans).

They are still waiting.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 06:46 am
Why should the govt bail out these homeowners at all?
The lenders knowingly took the risk,and the people that got those sub-prime loans were all credit risks anyway.

The loans came about because people wanted "affordable housing" and the lenders wanted to make money.
Should the govt bail out everyone that makes a bad decision and loses money on a loan?
Why is it the govts responsibility to bail you out when you cant pay back the money you borrowed?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 09:17 am
They shouldn't, but Bush has this one right - for a change - that's if he keeps his word, which isn't too reliable. It should be some help by extending the loan period, and forgiving the penalties on late payments until some specified time - like 6 months to one year. If they don't shape up by then, they'll fall where they wlll, because those people over-extended themselves. People must take some responsibility for their own fiscal management even if loan sharks helped them get into those loans.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 09:18 am
The reason I came to this opinion is based on the fact that if we can spend 2.7 billion every week in Iraq, we can certainly help our own citizens some.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 08:52 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
The reason I came to this opinion is based on the fact that if we can spend 2.7 billion every week in Iraq, we can certainly help our own citizens some.
:

Totally unrelated issues!

Unless there was fraud on the part of the lender, the govt has no business bailing individuals out of dumb decisions, especially in Calif!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 08:56 am
woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
The reason I came to this opinion is based on the fact that if we can spend 2.7 billion every week in Iraq, we can certainly help our own citizens some.
:

Totally unrelated issues!

Unless there was fraud on the part of the lender, the govt has no business bailing individuals out of dumb decisions, especially in Calif!


Ofcoarse it's a related issue; Bush wants to fund both which means the deficit will grow.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 08:58 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
The reason I came to this opinion is based on the fact that if we can spend 2.7 billion every week in Iraq, we can certainly help our own citizens some.
:

Totally unrelated issues!

Unless there was fraud on the part of the lender, the govt has no business bailing individuals out of dumb decisions, especially in Calif!


Ofcoarse it's a related issue; Bush wants to fund both which means the deficit will grow.


Well, obviously I believe Bush is WRONG, again!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 09:00 am
Ofcoarse you're not wrong by stating: Totally unrelated issues!
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 09:04 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Ofcoarse you're not wrong by stating: Totally unrelated issues!


that is correct. How does the so called war become a relavant issue to the "credit problems" of individuals.

Usually children act that way...."you did it for johnny now do it for me"

Are you a child?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 09:09 am
Don't bail out lenders or unwary home owners. Lets see how big of a tail spin we can put this economy in.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 09:18 am
parados, Many people do not understand economics. Without credit, our economy will certainly take a nose-dive.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 11:02 am
Come on guys. The bailout isn't for homeowners. Its for the big lending institutions. The fact that it helps some homeowners is a secondary effect that isn't a primary concern of bush or the government.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 11:15 am
rabel, You might be right, but without available cash in the market place, our economy will take a nose-dive.

Just imagine if nobody could borrow to buy homes, remodeling, cars, and big ticket items in our economy.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:27 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Why should the govt bail out these homeowners at all?
The lenders knowingly took the risk,and the people that got those sub-prime loans were all credit risks anyway.

The loans came about because people wanted "affordable housing" and the lenders wanted to make money.
Should the govt bail out everyone that makes a bad decision and loses money on a loan?
Why is it the govts responsibility to bail you out when you cant pay back the money you borrowed?


Exactly. Protect borrowers and lenders form reckless decisions, you will continue to get reckless decisions.

C.I.'s points are taken, but the practices in question will continue till it hurts the people making them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:35 pm
roger, There is a balance in which the government should intercede, and I'm not sure what that level is. However, I look at this issue from the standpoint of our total economy that must continue to have credit available in order that our economy survive. I just don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water because mistakes were made. Depressing our economy will also hurt the innocent people. It's also for selfish reasons by our government; unless our economy remains strong enough, tax revenue will drop, and everybody losses.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush's plan for aiding homeowners is less than it appears
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/23/2026 at 03:35:47