Wingnuts attack McCain: spend $300 billion more to buy up bad mortgages

[ProSense]

Wingnut site alert:

McCain wants to spend $300 billion more to buy up bad mortgages

By Michelle Malkin • October 7, 2008 11:07 PM

I can’t underscore enough what a rotten idea John McCain’s ACORN-like government mortgage buy-up is. I said it during my liveblog. And I’ll say it again: “HE WANTS TO EXPAND THE BAILOUT. He wants to do what ACORN wants to do. We’re Screwed ‘08.”

This was his supposed “game-changer.” This was the very first thing out of his mouth during the debate tonight — his big pitch right off the bat. The McCain campaign immediately sent out this fact sheet on the proposal, which will cost at least $300 billion. The proposal involves directing the Treasury Secretary to “purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers.” That’s on top of the trillion-dollar crap sandwich, the $85 billion to AIG, the $25 billion to automakers, the $200 billion in capital and credit lines to Fannie and Freddie, and who knows what else we’ll be forking over to California, Massachusetts, etc., etc., etc.

He spent the entire debate assailing massive government spending — while his featured proposal of the night was to heap on more massive government spending to pursue home ownership/retention at all costs. If Obama had proposed this, the Right would be screaming bloody murder about this socialist grab.

Commenter astonerii adds: “It does not matter whether it is on top of the current $700,000,000,000.00 bailout. It is the simple fact that McCain thinks that house prices need to be stabilized by government mandate . That the government has any business at all to do with the price of a home. That the governments duty is to keep people in their overpriced homes. That the government should discriminate against non home owners by helping establish home prices that are outside the range of many if not most people who work near where the homes are located. The government is not the economy, unless you are communist marxist socialist. Get the God Damned American government out of my pocket and my choices and do it now.”

-more-

[knowbody0]

1. ha ha ha ha

[redstate_democrat]

2. John McCain is a manchurian Socialist Marxist Commie

:evilgrin:

Trotskyist socialist Marxist Chavezian Big Government Socialist :evilgrin:

[tularetom]

3. You know what - I agree with 'em

If it had come prior to or in lieu of the $700 billion bailout of the lenders I'd be all for it. It's the top of trickle up economics that we need more of.

But it's too frickin late now. The entire process is tainted and can no longer be repaired by massive infusions of borrowed capital.

[ProSense]

5. I agree with them too: they're "Screwed ‘08.” n/t

[karynnj]

8. A smaller version did. The Senate Finance committee wanted it

in their version of the Senate version of the Stimulus package but the Republicans filibustered it - The Senate Finance committee passed it with 20 votes (There are 21 Senators on the committee. That alternative stimulus package was filibustered by the Republicans. (That was a Kerry/Smith provision). It was then added to the recent banking bill that passed a few months ago. (Frank put it in the parallel House bill.)

Kerry introduced the legislation last December. (He was commenting this week that this would have been the easier way to deal with it.)

[doc03]

9. I agree but why in the hell didn't he come up with

that idea when he parachuted into Washington to save us a couple weeks ago. I think Barny Frank had that idea a couple weeks ago he should have got together with him and worked out a bi-partisan solution for the thing back then.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. McFailure...

and Malkin gives me gas, I can not stand that fascist wench.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Stay home Nov. 4th, Freeptards. Better yet: emigrate.

But who'd have you???

[Miss Chybil]

7. Ha! John McCain is a communist! On the other hand...

I thought the big bailout that just passed was supposed to buy up the "toxic mortgages" that are sinking the books of the financial markets? I'm starting to think McCain just doesn't get it.

[FVZA_Colonel]

10. I wonder how long it will take him to backtrack on this?

If his base is this pissed, I can't imagine any gains among independents could possibly make up for this.

[RoadRage]

11. I agree with this post.. i do NOT want the government buying mortgages.

I BOUGHT A HOUSE I COULD AFFORD. I GOT A MORTGAGE THAT WAS NOT GOING TO GO UP IN 3 YEARS.

I DID THE RIGHT FUCKING THING!!!! No, I do NOT think that the government should help the guy who wanted the $500,000 house, but could only afford the $100,000 house - but bought the $500,000 house anyway.

You know what.. banks are sitting with hundreds of thousands of empty houses right now. Do this. Say, hey - you can't afford your $500,000 mortgage.. but we want to help you out. We're sitting on an empty $100,000 house.. you can afford that. We are going to forclose on your $500,000 house (and try to sell that to a guy who can really afford it) but we're going to allow you to move into the $100,000 house that you can afford.

Home owner isn't bankrupt.. he's in a smaller / less nice house - but it's one he can AFFORD
Bank has one less house it has to try and sell.

GOVERNMENT ISN'T FUCKING INVOLVED.

Problem Solved.

[ProSense]

12. Good, you and the wingnuts found common ground. It's McToast's plan, it's stupid

It made no sense. You should disagree with it.

[RoadRage]

13. Don't Tell me what the hell I should disagree with!

Please, show me the rule here on DU where I have to agree to every fucking Dem line across the board. I'm sorry.. as a homeowner who is paying her mortgage, I have a right to be pissed about the help that this government wants to give to those who AREN'T paying their mortgage.. but who are living in a nicer house then I am. Now they get to keep living in the nicer house, and MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS are going to pay the difference between the mortgage that guy AGREED to pay and the one he wants to pay.. something lower... like about what MY Mortgage payment is. So, he gets the nice big fancy house and gets my nice low affordable mortgage.. and I get to pay for my mortgage and his via my taxes?

Yeah.. sorry.. no, i'm not going to go ahead and AGREE with that. And I AM a democrat. I can only imagine what the republicans are saying about this.

I do think American's are owed healthcare as a right. I agree with having a welfare system to help get people on their feet (not for life). But, I do not agree with bailing people out of financial decisions that they agreed to like the one listed above. Because what the hell is going to teach them not to do it again next time? Nothing.

[ProSense]

17. No one is telling you what to disagree with. You did agree with Malkin.

More power to you!


"Please, show me the rule here on DU where I have to agree to every fucking Dem line across the board."

No one suggested that. I still have trouble with people who believe the victims of this crisis are to blame for the crisis. Everyone knows there are greedy people who took advantage of the situation and got burned. That is not a reason to say fuck you to the victims.

[Captiosus]

14. Fatal flaw in this line of thought.

You say the bank has one less house it has it has to try and sell.

No it doesn't.
It had one house it had to try and sell (a 100,000 dollar house) and a house on the brink of foreclosure, but not yet foreclosed.
They give the 100,000 dollar house to the guy who is in over his head and foreclose on the 500,000 dollar house.
They still have just one house to sell.

What is the likelihood that they'd find a suitor for the 500,000 dollar house? What is the likelihood that a potential suitor could get a mortgage for a 500,000 dollar house? What is the likelihood that the person moved to the 100,000 dollar house will default on that mortgage as well? Do you think the bank would want to turn around and lend the the people who were irresponsible with a 500,000 mortgage yet another mortgage for a 100,000 dollar house?

It doesn't really solve anything. It sounds like an ideal "win-win" fix, but it really isn't.

That said, I agree that McCain's plan is crap. We've already dumped way too much money on this problem and it hasn't helped.

[RoadRage]

15. So what's the better option?

Leave the guy in the $500,000 house when he can afford to make payments on a $100,000 house, and have Uncle Sam pay for the $400,000 difference.

Right now if you have a guy who is defaulting on a $500,000 house and is going to be forclosed upon.. and you have an empty $100,000 house - you're about to have TWO empty houses.

Let's pretend (or hope) that McCain's rape the taxpayer plan doesn't happen. You have empty house A ($100,000 house), and are about to have empty house B ($500,000). If you move the guy from house B into House A - you're left with only one empty house... not two. I say he can afford house A, because he still has a job.. he makes $40,000 per year. Enough to pay a mortgage with a fixed interest rate on $100,000. Not enough for $500,000. Is the bank taking a risk by giving a guy who already defaulted another chance? YES. Is it better then sitting on an empty home? Especially if the guy does have documentation to prove that he has the income to support the new mortgage?

Yes.. you're still left with an empty $500,000 home. The bank was going to have that anyway. Now they can try to re-sell it at market value (maybe $300,000 now). The bank takes the $200,000 loss.. but it's better then nothing.

Frankly.. i'm sure there are better ideas then this.. lots of other ideas. I'm against those that involve rewarding homeowners who bought more then they could afford.

[krkaufman]

16. Personally, I have to agree that the government should not be trying to ...

... artificially inflate the prices of homes. Housing prices have risen beyond what the economy can sustain, and so must come down to values that *can* be supported.