Freeze all mortgages where they are ...... upside and downside

[Stinky The Clown]

We are where we are. And I am sure most people woujld like to see the assessment of blame and even some punishment (Greenspan doing a perp walk??). But we also have to wake up tomorrow and keep living our lives.

What would happen if, by government fiat, all mortgages weer frozen where they are? No resetting ARMs.

Would it not be better for lenders to get *something* rather than a foreclosed property they have to pay to carry until it is unloaded? And it gets unloaded at severely reduced price, which hurts people not at all involved in this debacle.

I'm not suggesting ... I'm asking.

[knitter4democracy]

1. I like that idea.

I'd go even further--all mortgages are forgiven. If the banks' mortgages can be forgiven, so can the people's mortgage debts. It would be a huge boost to the economy from the bottom up, and the banks are getting bailed out anyway, so they're getting their money. The shareholders and funds won't be happy, but people will have more money to invest if they own their houses outright.

[KSDiva]

2. I was thinking this on the way to work today

I wondered what would happen if there was just a massive clearing of debt nationwide? Go back to zero and start over. I'm sure it would lower the appraisal on all homes, but just think what the average person or family would do if their debts (or a major one like their home) was suddenly gone? I would put money into the economy by working on my home, that's a grand a month I could spend, invest or reinvest in my home. Wow. And all the banks have loans and their own debt...in theory (very simple theory) it could work.

[knitter4democracy]

7. Massive clearing of debt--who would it hurt?

Hedge funds, funds of several types, shareholders. They took the risk and invested in bad debt, though. Clearing the debt with banks and the American people, though, would have massive possibilities. Instead of giving all the money to the rich and screwing everyone else, it would level the playing field a bit and help us rebuild our economy.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, but let's make sure the American people get the best deal.

[SoCalDem]

13. This is happening..only in slow motion..

As people start defaulting on payments to credit cards and mortgages, and file for bankruptcy.. The only difference, is that the common-man cannot "just walk away" from the blame and the stigma of it all..

There comes a time when the crushing debt is just too much, and many are just saying F-it..I'm done!


This whole bailout is not for US.. It's for the bigshots...so they can "keep lending money"

Borrowing money is what got us all INTO this mess..

[Zuiderelle]

3. Nice fantasy, but it wouldn't exactly be fair to people who don't own homes at all.

I'd have so much extra cash if I didn't have a mortgage, I would feel positively rich. But just imagine the divide between those who own homes and those who don't if that were to happen. How about instead we just give everyone a tax credit of $100,000? They can use it every year until the 100,000 is used up.

Meanwhile, of course, our country would collapse, but that would be ok, we'd all have lower mortgage payments.

[knitter4democracy]

6. Why not add in credit card debt?

They leveraged that, too.

If the banks can get loans based on bad debts (shaky mortgages and credit card debt) that are now all going to be forgiven in a massive government buyout, why can't the American people's bad debts be forgiven?

[Zuiderelle]

10. Sure, let's forgive all debt, no matter how small or large, and watch what's left of the economy...

collapse.

[knitter4democracy]

11. Are we so sure it would?

The World Bank has done similar things in other countries that are now doing better. We should talk with Argentina and see if we can apply what they did to our situation.

[Zuiderelle]

12. Yes, the economy would absolutely collapse if we forgave all individual debt

It's a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, that I can't even believe I'm discussing.

[Occulus]

26. Why? n/t

[Zuiderelle]

37. It's such a ludicrous notion and so obviously fatal, there's really no sense spending time to

describe all the ways it would be disastrous.

It's like me saying, "if you scale that fish and throw it back in the ocean, it will die" and then be asked why.

Or... if you use up all the fossil fuel in the earth, there will be none left. Well, why?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. You've made a number of absolute statements.

How about a discussion?

[demodonkey]

74. So ir's fair to bail out Wall Street fat cats, but not mortgage holders because some people rent?

Then forgive the mortgages on all housing units, but require anyone who is a landlord to reduce rent to tenants equivalent to the reduction of his/her building's expense of paying for the mortgage.

It looks like we're going to end up bailing someone out to the tune of trillions, so better real people should benefit than Wall Streeters.

Doesn't the Bible say something about a Jubilee? Hmm?

[Indenturedebtor]

75. In the Torah all debts are forgiven every 7 years I think

Automatic bankruptcy for everyone every 7 years. They knew back then that nasty rich people will make you a slave through debt.

[backwoodsbob]

53. you want to wipe out ten trillion dollars of dept?

congrats..you just singlehandedly bankrupted every bank in the USA and sent us into the worst depression in history

[knitter4democracy]

58. What about just freezing the debt, then.

We could cap the amount of interest for any and all debts (Michigan does for credit card interest, I know) for a certain period of time, say five years or two years or whatever. That way, banks still get their money, people still have responsibilities but don't get swamped when interest rates go up (as I assume they will to deal with this crisis), and everything keeps going smoothly.

My problem is that we're using taxpayer money to bail out the rich (when they don't pay as much, percentage-wise, in taxes as the rest of us) but not getting anything in return. If we can bail them out, why not bail regular people out, too?

[backwoodsbob]

64. so for two years or five years or whatever

banks cant make money...can't pay their employees...go broke..go bankrupt...congrats...you once again bankrupted every bank in the country and sent us into a depression

[knitter4democracy]

66. Of course they would still make money.

They don't just make money off of interest, you know. And freezing the interest rates or capping them would mean that money would still come in. I find it interesting that, at least in our area, credit unions can charge much, much lower interest rates for every kind of debt with much better terms for the borrower and yet still stay in business just fine.

[El Pinko]

4. Here's a better idea, let house prices adjust back to historical trends and price/rent ratios.

Let the a-holes who bought McMansions they couldn't afford (because they had dollar signs in their eyes thinking they could flip a year later and double their money) hit the bricks and RENT APARTMENTS if that's what they can afford. There are millions of responsible working-class people who have been WAITING for this godforsaken bubble to finally pop so they can buy a home at a decent price. I would not want to bail out foolish buyers at taxpayer expense just to keep still-inflated house prices high and deprive them of their chance to finally own a home.


By the way, your idea probably would not work. People already can't afford the "low" pre-adjustment payments. They bought with the expectation of flipping and doubling their money in 6 mos or a year. And even if they can afford the payments, they no longer want to make them, because the house is now worth half the loan balance and they see no prospect of ever selling it for what they agreed to pay for it.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I can't agree with you about the broad brush that everyone who bought with a 'tricky' loan ........

.... were just evil bastards out to game the system.

A LOT of them were ordinary people who saw this as *finally* their chance to own a home.

To be sure, there were gamers. A lot of gamers. But there were also even more who were just ordinary people (you and me types) who just wanted to do what they did ... buy their own house.

[El Pinko]

8. Anyone who sees the highest home prices EVER as a "chance to buy" must be touched in the head.

I didn't say all of them were gamers. An awful lot were just stupid.

Maybe they should sue TV shows like "Flip this House" for brainwashing them? :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

15. When for years the orice trend has been up up up, what else should people have thought?

They're not all as smart as you obviously are.

So now you condemn lack of financial sophistication as being 'stupid'?

What do you suggest? Debtors prison? Exile? Capital punishment?

[El Pinko]

17. For a decade or so. Big whoop. For 100 years prices went up SLOWER than inflation.

There were people trying to get the word out about the housing bubble, years ago, but we were ridiculed.

And no, I don't want any of that shit. I went into default myself!

It's called RENTING AN APARTMENT. What a drama queen.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Hahahaha

"Drama queen"

There ya go ... crap argument so call names.

And if you're so damn smart, how come you went into default?

[El Pinko]

33. I'm not especially smart...

...smart enough not to buy a house that costs 15 times my annual income, but not smart enough to choose a wife who would be willing to work a real job rather than insist on being an "artist" (and never making a dime at it) and living in San Francisco, which we could not afford.

I took my lumps for some of my choices, and in the end *I MOVED TO A PLACE I COULD AFFORD*, which is what all the idiot bubble buyers need to do.

You can make cracks all you want, but there's no inconsistency. I'm not whining about being "punished" just because I had to move out of an overpriced city.

So what is the big f'ing deal about people with Hotel 6 incomes moving their asses out of the Ritz-Carlton and into a place they can afford?

Why does their foolish choice entitle them to a gimme worth 100 or 200 thousand bucks? It makes no sense at all.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. After that vein on your forehead stops throbbing .......

... we can talk.

I have no quarrel with greedy fuckers getting theirs. No problem whatsoever.

What I **am** saying is that mot people who got burned by this were not the "Flip That House" crowd. They were ordinary people who got lured in by heavy advertising that worked very, very well. They got convinced that this was their last best chance for their piece of the pie.

They were taken advantage of (I see it as "victimized") by a huge, sophisticated system gamed against them every step of the way.

As for the informed and greedy .... I'm with you on that. Fuck 'em. Problem is, they're not the majority.

[El Pinko]

35. But it is...

The people who are seriously underwater are the ones in houses that used to be "worth" $400-500K and are now worth $200K - the folks in bubble markets. And every damn one of them was either a flipper or a working schlub trying to get in on the high-roller action via the housing market pyramid scheme.

I'm sorry, but I seriously don't buy for a second that the majority of people involved in the mortgage mess are people living in $90K row houses in Michigan or Indianapolis.

And the foreclosure stats bear it out. A significant chunk are in long-depressed areas like Ohio and Michigan, but the vast majority of them are in Florida, California, Arizona and Nevada, areas where prices were through the roof. My heart goes out to the folks in the non-bubble states. The insane cost of housing was never as much of an issue there - it was the lack of decent jobs, plain and simple.

http://www.realtytrac.com/blog/photos/foreclosurepulse_photos/images/4867/original.aspx

[arthritisR_US]

81. my point was, no bail out for the big if you're not going to help the little given

you are going to be using the little guys money.

[arthritisR_US]

73. I can't agree with him/her either! n/t

[knitter4democracy]

9. We didn't buy a McMansion, and we're not planning on flipping.

We got a zero down loan because that's what we needed (most of it's fixed, but the zero down part is an ARM second mortgage). Buying a house like that was cheaper than rent in our area, and we're not planning on moving for at least ten years, probably longer. It's not a huge house, not in any fancy subdivision, and not flippable (we're in Michigan--try selling a house here at all).

Not everyone who got those deals saw dollar signs and thought it was the easy way to get money. A lot of us are regular working folks doing our best to get along.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Ah, but you were 'stupid" .....

... by some people's measure. You wanted to buy a house. (<-sarcasm)

[knitter4democracy]

20. Well, I never claimed I wasn't.

;)

[arthritisR_US]

83. ya if you follow their logic having dreams puts one in the stupid realm, unfuckingbelievable. n/t

[El Pinko]

18. But you're not in trouble, are you?

The people behind the subprime shit were mostly middle-class folks in bubble areas, although the repukes would like us to think it was a bunch of uppity "poor folks" that the democrats FORCED the poor lenders to lend to... Michigan never had a bubble to begin with.

[knitter4democracy]

22. With our debt, things are tight.

My husband's a doctor, and our money situation is tight. A lot of it is dumbass consumer debt (though we don't have anything new or fancy), but with the med school loans, the house, and now just my car payment, the higher costs for health care (we have a crappy insurance with $60 co-pays after paying the high deductible), gas, and food are making it tight.

No, we're not in danger of losing our home, but it wouldn't take much for us to, to be honest. It's that tight.

[El Pinko]

24. Most of us are in that boat.

The situation in the bubble markets is different. It's exceptional. people making a combined $40 or 50K/year snapped up tickytacky stucco shitboxes in the burbs for $400, 500K. The payments are $2300 - 3000/mo. With prices soaring, and long commutes, it's absolutely untenable, then throw in the fact that one spouse is probably losing a job or underemployed, and you're screwed.

In your neck of the woods, it's still cheaper to buy. In CA, it has been cheaper to rent (by far) for a long time now, but people overstretched to buy anyway, because they caught up in the mania thinking they could sell it later for a big profit. Or else they could afford it, but they borrowed a bundle against the illusory bubble "equity" to finance the consumer lifestyle.

Either way, I just don't think your situation or mine is what we are talking about when we talk about the mortgage crisis.

You and I are just regular folks screwed by a shit economy and stagnant wages.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth there ....

.... "drama queen"

[Indenturedebtor]

76. Indeed. And if someone happens to live in one of the "bubble states" what then?

Should we have predicted that the bubble was going to burst right away? Should we all have known?

[knitter4democracy]

31. I think normal people like us are whom they're talking about, though.

I'm seeing it here in Michigan. Houses that are worth around $100-125K sitting empty because no one's buying and the bank forclosed on it (two on our street alone). Sure there are tons of McMansions sitting empty, but drive out in rural Michigan. Some areas are looking like ghost towns with for sale signs every other house and weeds growing high as no one's home.

A lot of people have lost their jobs. No money coming in means no money to pay the rent or the mortgage. Bank forecloses, landlord loses the house, landlord kicks you out--all those are part of the mortgage crisis, too. It's not just those who were hoping to profit off of it.

[arthritisR_US]

84. you are exactly the people I was referring to. So if they want to use your

money to bail out the bloated pigs who fart money when they pass gas there should be something in there for the little guy, period.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. What was the adjustable rate 2nd mortgage for?

[closeupready]

14. I actually think that would be more effective than throwing good money at bad

as they are doing.

[Meshuga]

19. Freeze ARM or make it easy for people to refinance to fixed rate before...

the interst only loans term expire. I'm sure people don't want to lose their homes and banks want people to afford to pay their loans.

But the problem is that a lot of people have loans that are larger than the value of their houses. How do these people refinance? What a mess!

[Ganja Ninja]

27. Outlaw ARM's completely and ...

set limits on the amount of interest and late fees you can charge for loans of all types. A major reason these loans have gone bad is the greedy usury practices of the lenders. They look for any reason to raise the interest rate and charge fees of all kinds for minor infractions. It's no wonder people can't repay them.

[carlyhippy]

46. good point, ARM's should be outlawed

It was drilled into my head from about age 25 to NEVER EVER get an ARM for any mortgage, and I am glad I listened. My mortgage interest is locked on 6%, don't know if it is a good rate or not, but at least I can still make the payments.

[flvegan]

21. It's absolute brilliance.

And, it's what I've been posting here for some time.

The banks are in the business of getting interest on money lent, not on selling real estate. Every foreclosure of a loan made in the last several years is a big loss for the bank.

If a family can make their subprime payments at 8 or 9% interest, but will default if it goes to fed + 9% or whatever the reset is, then why not just be happy making 8 or 9%, rather than losing $30 40 50 thousand dollars at least?

[MadHound]

23. Yes, let's reward greed and stupidity,

While those of us who did the right thing continue to get screwed. Sorry, no thanks. If you signed up to buy a McMansion, or any other property that was over priced, if you decided to do so with no money down, an ARM, you're flat out stupid and shouldn't be rewarded with a do-over.

Buying a home is largest single investment most people make. As such, you need to do your homework, know what your options are, and if you don't understand it, seek out financial advice. And if you don't qualify for a standard fixed rate, down payment mortgage, then you save up your money and rehab your credit rating until you can qualify. You don't go out and get a liar's loan that you know you can't afford and expect somebody to bail you out when it all goes belly up.

[knitter4democracy]

32. Not everyone got a "liar's loan," though.

When a house payment is cheaper than rent (as it is in much of Michigan), you buy a house. If you have no down payment, you take the best deal the bank's offering, hoping that you can set enough aside in savings on the rent/mortage difference to make sure you'll be okay.

A lot of people up here in Michigan are just regular hard working folk who've lost their jobs and gotten screwed. Forgiving their mortgage would be a massive help to them financially and most likely help keep our state from dying off entirely.

If we can give welfare to the corporations who made this mess, we can save Michigan and the rest of the Rust Belt.

[dysfunctional press]

36. "forgiving their mortgage"??? who in the world is suggesting that?

the op was talking about freezing the rates, not forgiving the loans.

forgiving the loans(as well as freezing the rates) would be rewarding irresponsible behaviour, and screwing those who played by the rules, if only by devalueing the dollars that they have worked to earn and save.

the people who over-extended themselves need to learn from their bad choices, not be rewarded.

[knitter4democracy]

39. I am.

If the banks don't have to learn from their bad choices and instead are rewarded, why shouldn't the American people get the same deal?

[dysfunctional press]

41. the vast vast majority of the american people DIDN'T make those bad choices...

why should the ones that did be rewarded?
and if you think that the banks are getting off scott-free in all this- you need to do some more research.

[knitter4democracy]

44. They're not hurting like we are, though.

What happened to taking care of each other in this country? All people everywhere make bad choices every day, so telling me that you don't want to pay for someone making a bad choice just makes me want to bring up all the choices that you make that I pay for. That's why we pay taxes and live in community--to support each other and help each other get along.

My husband's a doctor, so we pay a lot in taxes (we don't make enough to get the huge tax breaks the richer people get). We don't begrudge anyone those taxes. Yes, my husband works really hard, and yes, he deals with patients every day who make bad health decisions, but if he stopped taking care of people who make bad health decisions, he'd be out of a job.

Helping someone who's drowing isn't rewarding them. It's helping and ultimately saving them. The suicide rates are up, death rate's going up, and Michigan is dying with massive population losses and deaths. Helping us out isn't rewarding bad behavior--it's keeping us alive. There's a huge difference.

[dysfunctional press]

45. so what exactly would you consider to be a reasonable amount of "help"...?

:shrug:

btw- how much lower of a rate does your husband's practice charge the people who make the bad health decisions?

[knitter4democracy]

52. I think any deal that helps the lender should also help the lendee.

My husband's practice doesn't have different rates for different patients, unlike banks. You see him, you pay a flat rate for that billing level. Your insurance can argue it, you can argue for a better rate if you have no insurance, but the base rate is set by Medicare. Unlike banks, who charge whatever they want that makes them the most money, and if that means usurious levels of interest or crappy fine print that non-lawyers can't understand, they'll do it.

[dysfunctional press]

57. and what exactly do you think that deal should be...?

what level of 'help' do you envision for the people of michigan...? specifically.

[knitter4democracy]

59. I answered that in the other post.

As for this crisis, I could see something like making the banks agree to serious regulation in order to get the money. Stuff like capping the interest rate on credit cards (Michigan does this already, but we could lower it from 20% to 15%), freezing all mortgage interests where they are and lowering the usurious rates to the cap, and saying that any homeowner of a house worth less than $200K (which would be the majority here in Michigan) in danger of foreclosure has the mortgage erased.

[dysfunctional press]

61. those suggestions weren't specific to michigan, though...

healthcare, unions, troops, corporations- the other 49 states are dealing with the same issues...

"saying that any homeowner of a house worth less than $200K (which would be the majority here in Michigan) in danger of foreclosure has the mortgage erased."

so what would be the incentive for all the people who aren't being foreclosed on to continue paying their mortgages?

[knitter4democracy]

62. They're huge problems in Michigan, though.

Since we started this recession, any ways to fix it will help us. We're just further along.

The foreclosure thing could be grandfathered very easily, and honestly, most people I know would keep paying on their mortgages if they could. It's a pride thing.

[dysfunctional press]

70. suggest your idea to 'most people you know' who'd keep paying their mortgage...

if they found out that the government was going to pay off the mortgages of all the other people in similar homes who had over-extended themselves, how would they themselves feel about not getting any of the government largess being awarded the non-payers, and having to payoff their own mortgage one month at a time from their own pocket,like always...see for yourself how they answer.

if you think that john q. public is going to be happy to continue those monthly payments for the next 25 years when peter party next door who wasn't able to afford the house without an interest-only zero down payment adjustable-rate mortgage is getting his monthly nut covered by the taxpayers(of which john q. is one)- then you know very little about human nature in the real world.

[knitter4democracy]

80. We must live in different communities, then.

My plan would apply to a whole lot of families here, most everyone, in fact.

That "Peter Party" situation just doesn't seem to exist here. I know in our area of Michigan, there aren't many of those McMansions, and the ones that do exist cost more than the $200K limit I used. People here in homes costing less than that are the middle class and lower who are just trying to survive. I don't know of anyone who has bought a home like that and then spent all they had on other crap, only to lose their house. The people here losing their homes are losing them because of lost jobs or wages dropping so much that the rise in gas (you have to drive everywhere here), food, education fees, and heating costs were just too much.

Even in Detroit, those homes cost more than $200K. Anyone living in a house worth less than that is definitely middle class or lower here, with many of us from the upper class who can't afford those more expensive homes, either.

[demodonkey]

77. Why not? Bankers ARE getting rewarded for their bad choices, & greed too? Why not the little guy??

Yeah, yeah, right... let's just let all those little guys who got into trouble (like getting sick with no insurance or lousy insurance) or who made a mistake, let's just let them all pull their bare feet up by their own bootstraps.

[MadHound]

38. That's where you, and thousands of others, are wrong

When a house payment is cheaper than rent, you don't rush into buying a house, taking the best deal the bank is offering. You don't pay nothing down, you don't get an ARM. If your credit is such that all you can afford are those types of loans, you don't get one because all you're doing is setting yourself up for failure. No money down, ARM's are nothing but suckers' loans.

When going into buying a house, you don't hope, pray, or have faith. You have to know, you have to have budgeted, you have to have thought about it and planned ahead. Otherwise, don't take out the loan. Suck it up, pay rent for awhile, save money elsewhere and then when your financial and credit situation is better, you get that tradition money down, twenty-thirty year fixed rate. Millions of people have had to do just that, suck it up and save the money, and that worked well for decades. The trouble is now we've got a generation of people who want it all now, and are willing enough, and dumb enough, to take any sucker loan out there.

As far as corporate welfare and bailing them out, no, I'm not in favor of it. Nor do I think that we should more money at individuals losing their house. We keep throwing money around like that, rewarding greed and stupidity, we're going to break the back of those of us who thought ahead and did the right thing. Gee, with those taxpayers gone, who's going to finance the rest of the idiots out there.

Let both people and corporations suffer the consequences of their actions. Sure, it's a hard lesson to learn, but maybe once they've learned it they'll think and plan ahead next time instead of jumping at whatever sucker's move is out there.

[knitter4democracy]

40. I dare ya to come up to Michigan and tell us that we just need to suffer.

We've been suffering already for years, thanks. Don't forget, we led this damn recession.

You might want to read up on what it's like up here before getting all judgemental. I know a lot of hard working people who aren't getting ahead, who are working their asses off just to be able to pay for the public school's "pay to play" fees and gas to and from work. It wasn't this bad ten years ago, and it's gone slowly enough that those people who bought a house ten years ago thought they'd be okay, and now they're not.

Not all foreclosures up here are for ARM mortgages. Keep that in mind before ranting about a stereotype that doesn't exist everywhere.

[dysfunctional press]

42. unfortunately, there are no gaurantees in life.

but giving away houses enmasse in a depresed area is not going to be seen as an acceptable solution to the rest of the country who'll be footing the bills.

sometimes the only solution is to relocate to an area that actually has jobs available...:shrug:

[knitter4democracy]

43. And that's exactly what's happening.

Families are moving out of our state, and I think the demographics are changing enough that we should be worried about losing Michigan in November.

Btw, telling people to move away from their land is a really crappy answer. A lot of Michiganders feel like we're going through our own version of Katrina, only slower, and the rest of the country is fine with letting us die. That kind of sentiment usually results in pretty serious backlash. If McCain, who won here in 2000, can convince voters here that he's going to do something real for Michigan, he'll win here.

But sure, tell everyone in Michigan just to leave and move to the Southwest. That's a great answer. :eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

47. who said anything about the southwest...?

"Btw, telling people to move away from their land is a really crappy answer"...

what answer would you prefer, exactly?

what EXACTLY do you propose that the rest of the country do for michigan?

and btw, since you brought up the subject of the southwest- since michigan is surrounded by great lakes, do you think that in return for whatever 'help' you feel that the state deserves to get from the rest of the country, a pipeline should be built to take great lakes water to the people in the arid regions in the southwest...? :shrug:

[knitter4democracy]

51. That's where many of them are moving.

That's why I used it as the example.

I think the entire country needs to admit that the basis of our economy is crap and that we need to refigure it. For example, my brother's the CEO of a small motorcycle company. He would dearly love to sell his bikes in Europe, but they slap a huge tax on it when he ships it over (something like 23%, but I can't remember the exact number). KTM doesn't have that tax here, though. Free trade my ass. So, in opening up our markets to "free trade," we've made our manufacturers uncompetitive internationally unless they don't actually manufacture it here. I think the first step would be to repeal any and all agreements like that and say that we'll have the same tax as any other country--if Europe taxes us that much, we tax their stuff that much. That's fair.

National health care. Why are Ford and GM all for it in Canada but against it here? With the huge increases in premium costs every year, both for companies and for employees, it would save everyone money if we had national health care and help people keep jobs they like where they want to live without having to worry about insurance.

Unions. We need to strengthen our unions, and that's a national problem. When a rich guy from California can back an anti-union bill here in Michigan, it's a national problem. We need to get the government enforcing the laws already on the books and getting back into the business of being on the side of the workers.

De-personalize corporations. That was an activist judge ruling back in the late 1800s, and it's time to change the law. Doing this will help the country by cutting lobbying power for the multinational corporations robbing our country blind.

Bring the troops home. Michigan's got a lot of guys over there, and that means that they're not working here and that their families are hurting. Time to bring them home where they're needed.

Manhattan-style project for renewable energy sources and green ways to manufacture the products we need. If we can build an atom bomb in just a few years and later put a man on the moon in less than ten years, we can figure out how to green up our manufacturing base and provide power for transportation and communities. Put one of the centers in Michigan between Ann Arbor and East Lansing to get some of the best minds in the world working on it.

As for selling off our water, it's already being done. There's a bottling plant up north, and there are many people who live on the lakes who've seen ships come in riding high and leave riding low when there's nothing being exported in that area. We're all pretty convinced that they're loading up on water, but that would mean searching ships and stopping them, and there's an international border to deal with. That's the other problem--half of the water's Canada's too. They're not going to be okay with any agreement to get the water to the Southwest. Most Michiganders aren't either. If you want our water, move up here. There are plenty of homes for sale.

[dysfunctional press]

60. "If you want our water, move up here"

ummm...aren't you the one who said: "Btw, telling people to move away from their land is a really crappy answer."

:shrug:

why is it an okay answer for water, but not jobs?

[knitter4democracy]

63. Sure it is.

You're the one who used it first, so I used it back tongue in cheek. Figures you'd latch onto only that instead of dealing with the rest of the post, though . . .

[DeschutesRiver]

54. Agree. As a fellow taxpayer who is being asked to pay for this

I am sickened about it. I worked, I saved, I scrimped, I did without when I needed to - the end result is that I own what I have, not sharing ownership with some stinking bank.

The idea that I am being asked to pay for people who, in the main and of course there are small exceptions, wanted to party on and not think about consequences has just sent me over the edge. The good news for me, sort of, is that I am able to live on a very small amount of money, and have enough self sufficiency tools and skills that I don't need to buy much or spend much. I garden, I raise my own meat, I bake my own bread, heck I bake everything from scratch. I can entertain myself with cheap dialup and long hikes to nowhere.

I do agree something has to be done, but if I see that people who acted irresponsibly are not taking a hit, and that I am expected to pay the party tab, I will practically withdraw from the process. If I don't make much, I won't get taxed much. There is no incentive to me to work harder than I do if it is going to pay for some of the utter crap I've seen my neighbors and friends partake in - that irks me as much as seeing the billionaires on Wall Street hoover up my tax money. At my age of 50, I say piss on 'em all.

I won't quit being a saver or a planner or careful with how I run my life, because that's what I try to do. And I am sure I will get caught up in paying for the irresponsible jerks who couldn't say no to heloc'g for trinkets in some way or fashion. But I'm going to try to figure how to keep changing my lifestyle to avoid letting someone else's poor planning become my emergency.

I'll re-join society once we all agree that bad actions must have consequences to the bad actor, first and foremost.

[DeschutesRiver]

56. Another thing about all this freeze mtg/bailout talk

when the mortgages get frozen or re-written, there are now real, ordinary people on the other end taking the hit, since banks have long since sent these mortagages packing from their own books.

These mortgage backed securities, which are the end result of the mortgages that everyone eagerly wants re-written, went into almost everyone's 401k, in some form or another. So we freeze/re-write X number of mortgages, and bam, there goes the bucks from some of our pensions. It is another layer of the onion. This mess is so complicated that every time one group wants saving, another innocent group gets whacked.

End of the day - unless everyone gets whacked equally, there is no hope. And I've never seen that kind of justice dealt out. I am still trying to think of more equitable solutions, but this is so deep a mess, my time is probably better spent teaching myself new skills that might make my life more bearable in a complete economic crash. Never, ever thought I would see what I only heard my depression era family members speak about. And there is a bunch more bad news to come.

[Javaman]

25. I just wrote about just this topic this past week and in a few other past posts...

And here we are...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4023030

[Matariki]

48. How about a cap on mortgage interest rates at something reasonable?

And on credit card rates?

You know, Regulation.

[RB TexLa]

49. No it wouldn't be better. That's letting lenders know they can write up any types of loans for any

level of credit and it's ok and safe. Letting investors know they can fund any crazy loans the lender presents them and it's ok and safe. Letting borrowers know they can buy houses that they can't afford and it's ok and safe.

What you are advocating is there be no penalty for risky behavior. That no matter how much risk you take someone will bail you out. I guess if thousand of people bet on a horse with 250 to 1 odds and the horse doesn't win you'd think it's a good idea to just reset the bets and give everyone's money back? There has to be risk or no one will care about what they do and then this mess we have now will be nothing in comparison.




Is that you Mr. Bush? Welcome to DU.

[KayLaw]

50. I agree with El Pinko on this subject.

I'd also like to add that I don't think your plan would work because a lot of buyers couldn't make their payments even if they were charged zero interest. Many people got into these houses because they needed no money down - they could buy a McMansion but couldn't scrape together the first, last, and security for an apartment.

[arthritisR_US]

65. I see alot of merit to this idea and I think that houses should be reassessed and

mortgages adjusted so that people are not paying mortgages for property that is worth less than the mortgage. If breaks can be given for the fat cats then why not the little guy and like you said ..it's better for the lender to get something rather than nothing.

[tammywammy]

67. No one was guaranteed that their home value would keep increasing n/t

[spin]

71. But if the value of your property increased....

would your mortgage increase?

[arthritisR_US]

72. no it wouldn't but when you're talking about bailing out the investors at the top

because their numbers have collapsed, in essence it was ok to privatize the gains and now socialize the losses. So, you have the little guy who has lost his home because of some fucking predatory arm that grew like Pinocchio's nose, and he still works and pays his taxes but lost his home and now he's paying to bail out the pricks who were instrumental in his loss...something is really fucking wrong here.

[spin]

79. I totally agree, something is seriously wrong...

and something needs to be done to help the little guy about to lose his house.

[arthritisR_US]

82. proportionality and fairness where are they? we know that accountability went

out the window the minute the repukes moved into the WH but really this bail out is so fucking one sided it's pathetic.

[slackmaster]

78. What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do that?

I can't find it.