President Barack Obama has presented a plan to try to stem the foreclosure problem afflicting our housing market. Obama’s plan looks to bring $75 billion to the table in this effort, with a potential $200 billion in additional financial support for the secondary mortgage market. The New York Times broke it down this way:
The plan has three components. The first would help homeowners who are still current on their payments, but who are paying high interest rates and cannot refinance because they do not have enough equity in their homes, a problem afflicting growing numbers of people as housing values tumble.
A second component would assist about four million people who are at risk of losing their homes. It would provide incentives to lenders who alter the terms of loans to make them affordable for the troubled borrowers. A third component would try to increase the credit available for mortgages in general by giving $200 billion of additional financial backing to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Beyond luring lenders with government money, the plan also calls on Congress to give bankruptcy judges the power to change the terms of mortgages and reduce the monthly payments.
Obama appears to need Congressional approval only for the portion of the proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of mortgages to reduce monthly payments. This provision has been bitterly opposed by the banking industry.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Bill Manzi.com 
DAMN! There goes Obama again! Pushing that socialist agenda of spending the taxpayer’s hard-earned money on….the taxpayer!!! The spendthrift nerve of him looking to help the little people – can you imagine?!
Jules just KNEW something like this would happen!
LikeLike
True, Jim,
Like a good socialist Obama’s going to make those 95% of Americans who did it right pay for the rest who were not careful. This is just the beginning.
We await the great Obama inflation. May already have started.
Jules
LikeLike
At least it’s not a direct bailout of mortgagees here, it appears to be an incentive to lenders to adjust rates. Failing that, allowing bankruptcy judges to adjust rates.
But if after that, someone can’t afford to be in a house because they can no longer afford it, it’s got to be foreclosed.
-FM
LikeLike
So Jules, then only 5% of Americans are having their homes foreclosed upon, and that’s only because they all did the wrong thing by getting a mortgage that none of them should have had to begin with, eh?
Your right-wing sound bite logic escapes me once again.
LikeLike
Jim,
Spot on. Your first paragraph is right, so I don’t see where the logic escapes you.
Keep up the good work.
Call Tod tomorrow and tell him you are considering changing parties.
Jules
LikeLike
Here’s some more interesting reading, which comments on the Bush 2005 changes to the bankruptcy laws. This, before the Wall Street meltdown.
“Bush’s Bankruptcy Legacy: Three Years and Nearly 1.5 Million Bankruptcy Filings Later”
“So why are we now seeing an increase in the number of families going through the more expensive and complicated bankruptcy filing process? Research shows that families are often forced to file for bankruptcy following an unfortunate unplanned event from which they are unable to bounce back because of other financial factors, such as low income and savings levels. The research points to the relationship between bankruptcy and unemployment, low income, debt levels—especially credit card debt—and medical expenditures, particularly for those families who lack health insurance, as the real reasons why people file for bankruptcy”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/bankruptcy_column.html
-FM
LikeLike
So the remainder of the population that actually PAYS their mortgage on time now gets to PAY for these losers. Let me just pay for their bad decisions. OR let me join them. Yea, now THERE’S a plan.
Fred and Jim, you couldn’t be bigger imbeciles, there’s just no way.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853
LikeLike
I never thought I’d see the day when David Brooks would turn into a socialist.
“Money for Idiots”
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
I googled Bush. All I got was retired pensioner.
I don’t know who this guy is.
With the Stock Market crashing I think maybe you ought to focus on the “One”.
Jules
LikeLike
So, Fred, you’re saying Santelli is correct! But that we have to suck it up. We have to support the ‘greedy idiots’.
I strongly STRONGLY disagree. And, quite frankly, you have to be a moron of STUPENDOUS proportions to go along with that thought.
::Fred and Jim dance, no prance, into the room and assume the position::
LikeLike
Patrizia [Puh-tritz-ee-uh] -noun. A female given name. From Latin meaning a craggy-faced hag unable to engage in normal sexual relations because its waning days of femininity are long departed leaving it to engage in homo-erotic thoughts for sexual self-gratification purposes.
LikeLike
Jim,
Classy!
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
It’s always a pleasure to engage in dialogue with you, although I recognize we are on extreme ends of the political spectrum.
Your response is taken as a compliment — whether intended or not.
However, when one has to always engage in name calling and the homophobic sexual analogies ‘that one’ does because they have nothing else to offer to the discussion, and even less with which to substantiate their ‘points’, it’s not even worth the effort to type a response beyond the one they got…
LikeLike
What’s the matter, Jim, your (edited by your favorite censor)sore this morning?
LikeLike
Jim:
Classy!
-FM
LikeLike
I thought we had entered a new era of bipartisanship????? I can see that I have not been paying nearly enough attention to my censorship duties. My apologies for allowing the discourse to turn “south”. As this is a family blog I will now censor all ad hominem attacks, except for the ones that I launch.
Bill the Censor
LikeLike
Patrizia,
Your comments are so much funnier and much more engaging when censored….
LikeLike
FM,
Well you know how it is Fred…our type must stick together…
Mayor,
I hadn’t realized you were slacking, nor did I realize that you too would jump onto Pattie’s bandwagon (‘bipartisanship’ is SUCH a dirty word).
I thought you were just seeing how us kids got along in the sandbox without any adult supervision…
LikeLike
I must say that as I was slacking I got some dust kicked into my face from that sandbox! Please let us know your thoughts by taking our new survey, which will guide us as we decide whether to plunge full speed into the gutter!
LikeLike
Jim:
Indeed I do, sir, indeed I do ….
-FM
LikeLike
Well, you know, I for one, am not enamored of the gutter; however, Fred and his trusty (censored for being somewhat offensive), Jim, seem to have a special talent for wallowing in it. I hear it’s all the rage with the (censored for being totally offensive).
LikeLike
1. (censored.)
2. (Doubly Censored.)
Figure it out.
LikeLike
(censored) equals somewhat offensive.
(doubly censored) equals totally offensive.
Just so that we’re clear.
LikeLike
Yes that is correct!
LikeLike
Mayor,
Thank you for confirming via Pattie’s last three posts that while she may not be ‘enamored of the gutter’, we are all likely in agreement that’s only because she’s got a hell of an upward climb until she can reach it… 😉
LikeLike
Jim:
But you were right before: the posts from that (precensored for your convenience) are so much more entertaining this way!
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
Rather than pre-censoring and making the mayor’s job easier, I prefer it more when he censors any objectionable language from that (beep beep beep) just to see if he’s only after the pubbie advocates or if he’s an equal opportunity censorer!
It is, after all, our sandbox! 😉
LikeLike
Jim:
I’ll stand by my argument: If you lower yourself to the level of certain he/shes (I think we’re still undetermined on that point, but I’m getting an unfortunate visual here), you violate the first rule and second corollary of arguing on the Internet:
Rule 1) Don’t.
Corollary 2) Never enter an argument with a moron. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with their extensive experience at it.
Your definitional work, though, is some of the funniest stuff I’ve read on the Net for a while, so keep up the good work!
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
The definitional work is actually based on my suspicion that I really think I know who that is, and if it is, that ‘unfortunate visual’ you are getting may be more accurate than you realize…
Thanks nonetheless though bub! 🙂
LikeLike