like the oil companies..But it is still not well focused.

Try heating it for 3 times the price it was 5 years ago.

Try driving to work after you have no work to go to and no job to fill your tank to look for a job.

Try paying 155% fro food than you did 7 years ago.

Try paying local property taxes with no income while your water bills have tripled.

now just staying alive is a gamble when you risk tomorrow not being worse than today..

Join the real world and stop living in a blind eliteville.

Congress is incapable of compromise and this bill is too extreme.

There are thousands of innocent people who are suffering as a result of job loss, reduced property values and other expenses that is pressuring them and there are thousands who were just greedy or foolish..but the two extremes cannot be lumped together.

Congress has become a wounded logjam, incapable of separating the two.

Bush doesn't mind blowing through money one bit. He has spent the Clinton surplus and doubled the national debt on top of that. When he leaves office, the debt will be hovering around $10 trillion dollars. That amounts to a $5.4 trillion dollar tax INCREASE. The uber-rich won't pay that. They are multinationals. They will just move.

Bush's problem with this bill is it spends money helping the middle class and those struggling to enter the middle class. He wants all welfare directed to the wealthy. John McCain seems to want more of the same.

I read somewhere about a $7 G credit for scarfing up someone's home.

Forgive me as I borrow DeadXXXmans elevator music ( a Beatles song I used to love) slow computer here.

Here it is:

"The plan combines large tax breaks for homebuilders and a $7,000 tax credit for people who buy foreclosed properties, as well as $4 billion in grants for communities to buy and fix up abandoned homes."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/10/news/economy/se...

--It's all their fault, bubba. These renters should've have run credit and background checks on the homeowners, demanded three different references, and made them agree to submit to monthly drug testing before they signed their leases. Don't you know anything about personal responsibility?!!! ;-x

My source was libsRfunny:

http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/08/...

I regret including it into the comment, I would be happy to name all the other sources of the research I did for the rest. I think they are good.

It does seem that when I do a fair amount of research, my comment is ignored.

I got lazy, sorry and thank you.

That leaves two in three who will lose their homes.

???

No problem. Thanks for explaining your train of thought. You have my undying respect.

Keep the faith. Francisco has always been a man I wouldn't mind having to emulate.

Very few loans were made that way and the properties sold that way were very low in price in neighborhoods that were new and primarily condos. Any property bought with less than 20% of value as a down payment is liable to PMI fees, which is another point many first time buyers aren't aware of.

One fact about new condos that many people aren't aware of is that the tax basis initially posted is for the undeveloped land. The following year, when the applicable tax for the structure is included, the note is higher. Also, the maintenance fees in the beginning is also low and will rise like everything else. Very few first time home buyers are aware of these facts and the seller will NEVER give one warning.

If I'm a lender, I would want the buyer to understand what they're buying, especially when the buyer barely qualifies. I wouldn't want to own the property again.

I hope you're right. The question is, what is legitimate and honest needs.

There's a whole spectrum of cases where many homeowners and especially renters are suffering through no fault of their own. This bill is being touted as a small step for a very large problem.

To a small degree, it's the same here. But our problems is even larger and different than other states. Property taxes here are based on a market assessment basis when first bought with a capped increase millage rate. For example, 2 houses of the same square footage bought at different times pay vastly different tax amounts. One house bought in 94 is paying less than a house in 01. That means that if my neighbor's house was sold today, the new owners would be paying taxes much higher than mine and both houses are the same size and sit on the same size land.

Another problem is hurricane insurance which has doubled or tripled in the last 10 years.

A further issue is the average home costs, lack of rental property, average income, and dwindling jobs. It's not a pretty sight.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/s...

http://www.miamiherald.com/548/story/523904.html

I think I read somewhere that the rule for FHA insurance stipulated owner occupation.

If I am right that means the infrastructure is in place, and if this bill does not take that into account then I am on the side against it.

I do not like the tax credits for the vultures buying up the forclosed properties either.

I don't mind pulling folks out of the mud if they where tricked as long as they can pay what would be fair for their home.

I've known people that have made mistakes by not having legal representation at their closings because they wanted to save $300 to $500 in fees.

I had a co-worker whose closing went wrong. He bought a house owned by his future next door neighbor. The seller's mortgage holder paid off his current home instead of the the sold home. When my friend got his first mortgage notice it was for both properties. Needless to say he was in deep doodoo. If he had an attorney representing him at closing, the title statement would have been reviewed and the error would have been found. The title company was ultimately responsible and through the good graces of the seller's attorney, the error was reversed. BTW, the seller's attorney didn't charge the buyer anything. The buyer was returned the price of the stamps and charged a different price which netted him just under $150.

That last sentance stopped me.

The other day you refrenced my all time hero, Francesco di Bernardone, and I could not hit the good button.

I may change my silly rules someday, but not yet.

If you are paid weekly you are doing very well.

My house was $35 K but then I refinanced to $95 K to settle up with the IRS.

Never had a credit card.

I struck out young into the workforce and did pretty well for a while until the rules caught up with me.

It would be valid for you to ask why I am a liberal when it was the government that took me down.

Such is life.

It sucks, but We also are the revenue of this government .

More than half the folks who have sub-prime loans would have qualified for a standard loan. I blame the Opacity of the industry; most of these loans are paying an interest rate higher than their state usury laws allow.

The disease:

WE are the GDP our consumer spending is what makes this country rich.

If 1 in 50 households are facing foreclosure I think that represents a serious threat to the "wealth of this nation".

A 30 year fixed mortgage for $100 G at 6.5 percent would be $632 per month and cost the borrower $127.5 G in interest.

A Sub-Prime mortgage could hit a an interest rate of more than 20 percent (perspective but based on ignorance) that would mean $1632 per month and cost more than $500 G in interest.

The lenders are to blame because the lenders fraudulently loaned money to someone they knew would never be able to pay. Had those people not purchased what they could not afford, but the lender said they could afford, maybe now they might have had a legitimate chance at a standard loan.

This is typical idiotic comment from who doesn't know any history.

Get some education before you write or speak on this specific subject.

You lose sight of the actual problem - legitimate homeowners. The lenders have already received more help than they need, but this bill's aim isn't going to benefit them. FHA is not only a lender, it's also a guarantor of loans for buyers that can't afford inflated home prices.

http://www.fha.com/

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/fhahistory.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Ad...

I agree that the banks are at fault. I also have worked in banking and financial institutions. I also know that those institutions are doing whatever it takes to make a profit by outsourcing work that once did. There are less loan officers and personnel on their sites. They have depended upon mortgage brokers - actual middlemen - in order to increase profits. But they haven't done is take responsibility for verifying the credit worthiness of the customers brought in by those brokers. The day that banks hold those brokers accountable - say posting security bonds for their customers - then you'll see less speculators and defaults.

This bill's aim is to facilitate home owner's increasing default by rising home prices and mortgage interests that would put them on the street. It may be too little, too late, but it's a viable method that can work for both lender and borrower.

Five year ARMs DO exist. Many homeowners where led to believe, when they refinanced, that those ARMs weren't going to increase dramatically over that time period. They were wrong. The mortgage companies, like Countrywide, were touting these loans just that way over the last 10 years. And they were using very conservative figures about the the rise or fall of interest rates. But unlike gravity, where everything that goes up must come down, those rate never went down.

You owe everyone here an apology, but especially you owe an apology to ML2007. You don't know anything about what he's gone through.

You're not only stupid, you're dispicable.

Provide better stats. Your assumption of 2% is grossly understated.

A few weeks ago, I provided stats from reliable financial sources. The average national foreclosure rate is 18%. The speculation amount wasn't there.

NEVER before has the Fed exchanged newly printed money for anything less than Treasury Notes.

The acceptance of essentially worthless Wall Street paper as collateral for newly printed money is unheard of with no established way of repaying the "loan".

When the Fed deals with Banks, it just retires the treasury notes that were submitted in return for dollars. What is the Fed to do with worthless Wall Street Paper?

As the price of JPMorgan amply demonstrates (the 30% rise in value), the U.S. citizens were taken for a ride on this one.

Just a thought.

Would it be fair to say that anyone that has to borrow money for a home is buying more house than he can afford?

When the lenders do NOT explain the fine print and do not disclose the risks, that is fraud.

The tax payers are paying for the bailout of Bear Sterns and other financial institutions, but the same help is NOT allowed for millions of average citizens?

THAT is shameful and also nonsense.

Adam Smith thought that since money can by made by money, so its use ought to be paid for. Nonetheless, "he defended usury laws" as the necessary in order to encourage productive investment and discourage consumptive spending.

1980:

Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980

Overruled state usury laws

"SEC. 501. (a)(1) The provisions of the constitution or the laws of any State expressly limiting the rate or amount of interest, discount points, finance charges, or other charges which may be charged, taken, received, or reserved shall not apply to any loan, mortgage, credit

sale, or advance which is--(B) made after March 31, 1980"

(Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:

The Congress shall have power .To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; over ruling the 10th amendment-states rights)

1982:

Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act

Allowed adjustable rate mortgages.

How about asking the government to buy me a house.

I did spend a bit of time reading about usury today.

Please forgive a sloppy timeline:

Old Testament:

"In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken interest and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by oppression, and hast forgotten Me, saith the Lord GOD." (Ezekiel 22:12)

New Testament:

"This servant had already told two lines. First he said the master was an austere or harsh man. Next he called his master a thief because he

reaped where he did not sow.

Finally the master said to him "why did you not loan the money out at interest...so I could collect it and the interest." â;;(Luke 19:11-19:27)

The $30 billion was a guarantee against illiquid assets in the Bear Sterns portfolio which gives Morgan time to work them out of the portfolio without becoming insolvent themselves.

It's similar to the guarantees Chrysler got years ago. It didn't go in anyones' pocket.

The Federal Reserve handled it well and avoided a more dangerous situation that could have developed.

Henry Paulson is an ex-Wall Street CEO who will be looking for a cushy job come January.

It's possible. It should be easy enough to take care of that, though. No person or group who owns more than one home gets any "bailout." Because you can be certain those nasty flippers aren't renting.

For each provision aimed at the common person there are five aimed to line the pockets of the lenders and home builders that caused this mess in the first place.

The J.P.Morgan deal was well done?

A gift of $30 billion in OUR dollars for a weekend of work is well done?

Certainly NOT well done for the U.S. citizens who now needs to eat the cost of the $30 billion NEWLY PRINTED dollars that went directly into the pockets of the JPMorgan buddies of Mr. Paulson

I look a bit, but if any of y'all have it handy.

This bill just gives tax money to rich builders and lenders

VETO

This law seems to me to be PURE PORK

PURE PORK packaged as help for the common person SHAME!

This is something the government should not be involved in.

It has to balance itself out via economic forces to become stable and predictable again.

The Bear Sterns was a move to stop a potential chain reaction in the banking system that could have brought the house down. It was in the form of a guarantee to JP Morgan that bad assets would not be allowed to bring them down as well.

It was well done, however it was a disgrace that it was necessary.

Having worked in the banking industry for years I honestly can say the fault is with the lender not the borrower. The percentage of flippers, who I agree are not deserving of help, is minimal compared to those who wanted the house to live in before prices got so high they could never find a way to purchase.

I blame the lenders more than the purchaser because the lender fraudulently loaned money to someone they knew would never be able to pay. Had those people not purchased what they could not afford, but the lender said they could afford, maybe now they might have had a legitimate chance at a standard loan.

Speculation by institutions is gambling on a MUCH larger scale than that of house-flippers.

And no one's answered the question I posed above, though a few have negged me for it:

What percentage of foreclosures do you people think are happening to house-flippers rather than those who live in their homes?

Get real, this law needs rules for qualifying.

Do you really think the portion of those mortgages held by speculators amounts to even half?

And by the way, those who may have overextended themselves when paying for too much house were just following the president's advice. Bush's--and McCain's--economic policy amounts to this:

We can spend ourselves into prosperity. Give away money in the form of tax cuts for the rich and "rebates" so we can spend it irresponsibly on unnecessary items. Whatever you do, don't encourage investment and savings--that money doesn't go into the economy, doesn't raise corporate earnings so companies can employ more people (Though of course, corporate officers would continue layoffs while paying themselves immense bonuses and stock incentives rather than create more jobs, in order to "remain competitive"--but that's a whole other issue.)

You "don't think" a 5-year ARM exists?

Guess what - they DO exist. I guess a 60-second side-trip to Google was to strenuous for you ...

http://www.erate.com/5_year_adjustable_rate_mor...

http://www.forthebestrate.com/Adjustable-Rate-M...

Your assumptions are no surprise since you apparently have no connection to reality.

I vote none.

The administration bailed out Bear Stearns and other lending institutions in a HEARTBEAT.

You - your tax dollars - are MOST DEFINITELY paying for that!

But, the administration refuses to help the AVERAGE citizens who were fraudulently sold on those sub-prime mortgages and were not given all of the facts and risks to evaluate before the contracts were signed.

Predatory lending in disguise is what those sub-prime mortgages were.

Bush bails out the institutions, the perpetrators of the deception, while he lets tens of millions of Americans go bankrupt and get thrown out of their homes.

The Bush administration cares about NO ONE except their few rich, elite corporate buddies and their OWN pocketbooks.

Disgusting ...

Also, millions of RENTERS are being evicted because of rental property that was also being financed via sub-prime mortgages that have now bankrupted those property owners.

Your compassion is really underwhelming ...

I saw some goof on here (ML2007) posted a lie about having a 5-year ARM, which I don't think even exists, and then claimed to have had open heart surgery and needed the bailout to pay his or her mortgage. That's another lie. Homeowners and life insurance policies will cover your mortgage payments if you suffer a tragic illness.

But that's not the first lie I caught that goof telling.

VETO!!