A One-year mortgage holiday to stimulate economy: what do you think?

[Bluebear]

Please, I just heard this on a radio ad. If this is an idea from some unsavory source or group, don't accuse me of bringing it here :)
==========

A ONE-YEAR MORTGAGE HOLIDAY: You will not have to make any monthly principal and interest mortgage payments for one year under this common sense economic stimulus plan!!!

Congress should pass immediate legislation for the President to sign into law that offers temporary relief for twelve months for all homeowners and business owners who have mortgage/trust deed/note debt obligations for a one-year mortgage moratorium forbearance period.

You would not be required to make monthly principal and interest mortgage payments for a one-year forbearance period on your mortgage debt obligation.

Imagine what the American family, consumer and businesses could do with their extra cash: Pay down their personal and business credit card debt or fund college education to help build a better America, make donations to their charity of choice, rebuild their personal savings accounts, and of course spend the money back into the business community, providing jobs, and stimulating our economy.

Most importantly, this plan will lift the spirits and morale of the American people. It will help restore confidence in the economy and stability to the financial credit markets. It will restore trust in our elected government officials and create hope for our families and America's future. This is the ultimate WIN WIN for Democrats, Republicans, Liberals & Conservatives... ALL AMERICANS!!!

http://www.saveoureconomy.com/

[MADem]

1. Where's the "rent holiday" for the renters? And where's the gravy for people who

paid off their mortages in sensible fashion, and didn't use their homes as ATMs?

Not everyone owns a home. Not everyone owes money to a bank because they're carrying a mortgage.

This plan is discriminatory because it does nothing for those people.

[Bluebear]

2. Well, I imagined that response. Are you saying people in mortgage trouble are not "sensible"?

[MADem]

33. Well, I anticipated your affronted response as well. Let me put it this way--if that shoe fits,

wear it and put a nice coat of polish on it. If it doesn't fit, don't try to cram it on your foot or suggest that I'm trying to do that.

Yes, indeed. SOME people in mortgage trouble are not sensible--they were greedy. SOME people in mortgage trouble were speculators. SOME people in mortgage troubles had eyes bigger than their paychecks, and they ignored that bigass balloon that was floating down the highway towards them.

People who bought "too much house" because they HAD to have the tony neighborhood, the latest gee-gaws, the McMansion massive thing on a postage stamp sized lawn, well, they really should have known better. Yes, they were sold a bill of goods by fast talkers, but they bear some of the blame themselves.

Before I bought my first house, I did a lot of research. Anything a realtor or a banker told me, I took with a jaudiced view. I learned a few things before I hopped into the homeowning pool. Don't spend more than twenty five percent of your income on your housing costs every month; have yourself a six-month nest egg in case of emergencies, LESS house is better than more, because less is cheaper to maintain, etc., etc. I've always kept to those precepts. You don't "need" the snazzy, jazzy "Look At Me, I've Made It!!" overpriced house OR car. What you need is a comfortable HOME, and that is what your house should be. A HOME. Not an "investment"--not "equity,"--it should be the roof over your head.

Maybe this mess will get people back to that old fashioned attitude.

[JuniperLea]

35. And some people obtained reasonable mortgages

On modest homes they could afford... only to find those home values cut in half or more. Regardless, they now have a home that is worth HALF of what their mortgage is, through no fault of their own.

[MADem]

50. And those people deserve some consideration if they are having trouble meeting their payments

due to unemployment. Perhaps they could get a lower interest rate, or be able to defer a few payments if they're having trouble making the payments.

But renters who are out of work ought to be able to get a rent coupon for reduced rent, too, if that's the case.

You're just as homeless if you lose your roof because you can't make the rental payment or the mortgage payment. OR you have so many bills that your creditors put a lien against your house.

[JuniperLea]

56. Clearly you have no grasp of the situation...

You are talking about apples when a crate of oranges is on the table.

[MADem]

72. I have plenty of "grasp." I simply think the idea is a bad one. NT

[wryter2000]

39. Welcome to my tony neighborhood

About two miles from where those Oakland police officers were killed.

And my Mercedes is a 1982 Subaru with 240K miles on it.

[MADem]

43. Well, the shoe, quite obviously does not FIT you. So why are you trying to cram it on your foot

and then point the finger at me as though I wrestled you to the ground, broke your toes, and shoved that boot on you against your will?

It doesn't solve your problem to do that. It may make you feel better, but it really does help to read what I am saying in context. My only point is that it's not just mortgage owners who are suffering. If the goal is to "stimulate the economy" there are others who need help, too.

And I really can't see how the banks are going to get along without the income they expect from those mortgages....but that's a totally different issue.

[wryter2000]

54. Because your original post painted a broad brush

And you continued to make more and more false assumptions.

[MADem]

71. That is NOT true at all.

All I did was ask "Where's the help for other people?" This proposal assumes that the only people who are 'in the shits' are people with mortgages. I have three family members out of work, and one "underemployed." Only ONE of those three is carrying a mortgage. They all still have bills, though.

And then, in my follow up, I went out of my way to say "If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it."

Funny though, how I continue to be berated because I don't think "Free Money" is a terribly good idea.

[valerief]

3. Why does it have to do something for everyone if the objective is to

stimulate the economy, not mete out stuff equally? This is the land of capitalism, not equality. If we wanted equality, we'd be real socialists (damn, I sure wish we were!!!!) and not just corporate socialists.

[Bluebear]

6. Exactly. Should I not donate to food banks because I eat every day?

'I managed my affairs sensibly so there is food on the table, where's my free food?'

[JuniperLea]

14. Ah ha! You see how quickly that line of thinking...

Can slip into FreeperSpeak? That is exactly their mantra... no welfare because the recipients are lazy... no health-care because, hell, I can afford to see a doctor, so if you work as hard as I do (and you damn well better!), you can afford health-care too!

The flip side... why is it fair that my neighbor is driving a 2009 Mercedes and I'm driving a 2002 Mazda?!??!?!

[wryter2000]

21. Nice one

I'll use that.

[MADem]

40. Well, that was a pisspoor way of twisting my words and falsifying my intent.

And you know it.

Your attitude is this--people with mortgages get help. People who rent, who may also need help, don't get help. People who own their homes, but perhaps have massive bills due to unemployment, medical problems, etc., don't get help.

What you're saying is "Only mortgage owners can EAT."

Everyone else who's in dire straits? They're fucked.

[Bluebear]

64. I'm not saying anything. I posted a link for discussion & as usual, you're being ornery.

[MADem]

74. Your food bank example served to twist the meaning of what I said.

Pointing that out isn't being "ornery." It's correcting a misapprehension on your part. I won't use loaded words like "as usual," though. That's being "ornery."

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. MADem is pointing out the massive flaws in that plan

and you seem unwilling to listen to them. It'd help if you discussed what you posted, rather than complain when someone else discusses it.

[Bluebear]

88. "I was sensible with my money, where's my free stuff" is not a flaw.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. By definition, MADem is not just talking about themselves

because they talk about both renters, and people who had a mortgage but paid it off. So we know they're thinking about more than one category.

So, we can see that MADem's objection is a serious one that shows they thought about it, right from reply #1, and it's not just about their own situation. Later, we see them talk about people they know who have problems, only one of whom has a mortgage.

MADem made every effort to discuss this properly. You rejected that, despite asking "what do you think?" in the title.

You didn't want to hear what people thought; you just wanted people to say "hell, yeah!" because you'd heard a radio ad, and hadn't given it much thought.

[Bluebear]

100. Thank you for your input.

Since you know what I wanted and that I hadn't thought about it, it doesn't bear further conversation. Cheers.

[Raineyb]

96. How's this for a flaw: You've made no mention of renters.

What do they do under your proposal? Watch the happy homeowners enjoy the extra funds while on mortgage holiday while they still have to pay rent?

Regards

[Bluebear]

99. It's not my proposal.

[Raineyb]

103. It's the one you put up in the OP and you said that there hadn't been a flawed pointed out

I'm pointing it out. It doesn't really matter whose proposal it is, the proposal screws renters. I find that to be a major flaw in it.

Regards

[Bluebear]

106. I certainly did not say that, raineyb.

If you read it again, I said that immediately blaming people for their misfortunes (as in "I was sensible with my money, so why should I help you" is not a flaw in the plan. It's an emotional response.

[Telly Savalas]

59. That's a rather poor metaphor.

This proposal entails a rich family getting a free pass on its $3,000 a month mortgage, while a renter who's making the minimum wage gets nothing.

It isn't just for at risk homeowners. It's for anybody who holds a residential or commercial mortgage. So an asshole slumlord who owns 20 properties can rake in over a hundred thousand dollars, but the folks who live in the properties get nothing. I can see how a right-wing supply sider might appreciate such social assistance that targets the top of the economic pyramid, but it's pretty bizarre that it's being proposed at DU.

Moreover, a mortgage holiday for just the homeowners would cut off about $750 billion to a trillion dollars in cash flows to banks. Adding all business owners to the mix as the proposal does, and you're talking over $2 trillion if not more. That would certainly lead to a complete collapse of our financial system and hence our economy.

This idea is so bad, it makes TARP look good.

[MADem]

37. People who are renters can be in dire straits, too. What, they should be homeless,

if they suffer job loss or reverses, but the people with "mortgages" are somehow special? Even people who have paid off their mortgages can lose their job or suffer medical illness where they can't pay their bills or their real estate taxes.

If this is, as you say, "the land of capitalism, not equality" then those mortgage owners had better grab hold of their own bootstraps, and not expect a 'corporate socialist' handout from Uncle Sam and the banking industry, really.

[Raineyb]

95. I don't think leaving out renters bolsters your argument at all which the proposal

the OP was discussing does. I'd find it hard to argue that a homeowner with an asset is more hard pressed than the renter.

Regards

[JuniperLea]

8. Not everyone who has an upside down mortgage

Did something stupid or wrong or fell for a bad loan. The market plummeting did it. Three years ago my house was worth $450k... now, the value keeps sliding downward... $250K and still sliding.

I did nothing wrong. How is it fair that I hold a $300k mortgage on a <$250k home?

Life isn't fair. I did nothing wrong... not in the slightest bit wrong. All I did was save my money and buy a home. Fuck me.

[MADem]

52. Well, the house I live in cost less than thirty grand.

It's worth many, many, many, many times that now. And it was worth even MORE than that a couple of years ago.

But see, it's not "equity" to us. It's not "an investment." It's our HOME. It's the place where my family resides. We LIVE here--it's not "cash" to us. It's shelter. It doesn't really matter what it's worth, because it's where we hang our hats.

There were times when it would have been easy to tap the house to buy a new car or pay for that college for one of the young kids, but that's just not in our financial DNA.

If you hold on to your house long enough, it'll be worth what you paid for it eventually. If you can refinance to reduce your interest rate, that might help somewhat. I think the government ought to help people do that sort of thing.

[JuniperLea]

55. And there a lot of young people...

Who only bought in the past five years, who didn't look at their home as an investment, didn't use it as an ATM, never refinanced or took out a second mortgage, who are suffering now through no fault of their own. How long do you suppose it will take for my home to recoup the $100k beneath the mortgage principal? Do you think it's fair that I have to pay for a $300k mortgage when my home will soon only be worth $180k? How is that fair? I did nothing wrong. Nothing. How is it fair that someone just bought an identical home to mine and is paying $800 a month, and I have to continue to pay $1800 for the "luxury" of living in the identical home? I should just suck it up, huh? It will go up eventually, right? :eyes:

[MADem]

70. AGAIN....if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't.

And AGAIN...my point is this--there are people who are "suffering now through no fault of their own" because they lost their jobs, or invested in an ENRON type tanking stock, or suffered other bad luck/financial hardship/were economically screwed over, who are NOT mortgage holders. Why are they less deserving of assistance than someone who decided to buy a house and got screwed over? No one put a gun to your head and forced you to buy that house--that is the bottom line. Yet you are advocating that you should be helped, because you paid too much, but someone who is in dire straits as a renter should be tossed out on the street?

Maybe the answer is for you to rent a room to that renter...? That serves, in essence, to reduce your mortgage payment.

This proposal in the OP (which won't happen, it's rather silly to even bicker about it) is to help just ONE CLASS of people--people with mortgages. It's a "reward" for a poor decision, is what it is. Even if that poor decision is "through no fault of your own."

[JuniperLea]

77. You have a hard time connecting dots, don't you?

Renters and new buyers are benefitting from the new, lower home prices. There will be a lot of lower rents coming up; it's already happening.

How is it fair that the banks and lenders are being bailed out and everyone else IN THE EXACT SAME BOAT under the same housing crisis are just left out to dry?

[fizzgig]

81. i don't know where you live

but rents prices in my city are going up, not down.

[JuniperLea]

82. That's from owners trying to hang onto the bad loans...

When owners lose the property to foreclosure, or do a short sale, the new owner is faced with a drastically reduced overhead and the rents go down.

That's why you have neighborhoods with a wide range in mortgage AND rent prices.

[Raineyb]

83. I'm not sure where you're getting your rental numbers from

because I haven't seen rental prices go down one whit.

Regards

[JuniperLea]

87. It's area by area, state by state...

When people lose their homes or rental units to foreclosure, or in some cases, when they just walk away (which seems to be the new rage in Southern California) the banks/lenders are forced to sell at market value, far below the mortgage principal... selling short. The new owner has a far lower overhead and can afford to rent at a much lower, sometimes 50% or more lower, rental rate.

[Raineyb]

97. So in other words re this proposal and renters screw them?

This alleged rental reduction rate means what exactly as far as this proposal goes?

[JuniperLea]

98. Just a reply...

To someone saying the proposal favored owners over renters.

[Raineyb]

102. There's nothing in the argument that counters the argument that this proposal

favors owners. Owners get to stay in their homes but renters are supposed to look month after month until they find this magical lowered rent? (which hasn't been happening in my area that's for sure)

This proposal screws renters. I've seen nothing that counters that conclusion yet.

Regards

[JuniperLea]

105. You need to pay attention...

And read for comprehension.

[MADem]

92. Please DO tell me just what "dots" I'm not connecting ?

You made a bad bargain, for whatever reasons, and perhaps through no fault of your own.... and it's my fault? Uncle Sam's fault? Is that what you're saying?

"Others" are "benefitting" (those renters with leases aren't "benefitting"--they're locked into a fixed price for their rental unit; also, all of the people who walked away from their forclosures are now RENTING, putting pressure on the rental market) , so YOU want to benefit TOO?

Please, tell me what I'm missing here.


How is it "fair" that you get bailed out (because "you" somehow "deserve" it), but because of this awful economy, John and Jane Doe, who rent, and who saw their stock portfolios and retirement accounts plummet to "less than half their value," don't get bailed out?

Why is your house more "special" than the Doe's stock portfolio or retirement accounts (many of which are invested in through bank programs)? Taking a financial hit is taking a financial hit. What makes the house more important than the retirement? What makes the house more important than the stock portfolio? What makes the house more important than the repo'd car that some poor bum (who financed that car through his bank) needed to get to his lousy part time jobs? What makes the house more important than some poor slob's ballooning credit card bills (on cards that the poor slob got through his bank)?

Why do you object to others getting help? Why do you think you're first in line? I don't think I'm the one with the "connect the dots" problem here. All of this shit flows back to BANKS and LENDERS.

I do think the banks should reduce the interest rates on these mortgages, if they possibly can. That would be a way to reduce pressure on some of these unfortunate homeowners. But if we're going to be handing out cash to, as the OP says, "stimulate the economy," the distribution shouldn't be limited just to people with mortgages.

It won't happen, anyway. So the whole discussion is pretty moot.

[Silent3]

76. Are you implying that a drop in home value automatically equals "suffering"?

If you buy a house that's $500,000, and you can afford the monthly payments for that home, then the value of the house drops to $250,000... the payments stay the same.

Presuming you haven't lost your job along with the housing price collapse, it might irk you to keep paying so much for a house that's worth so much less, but those payments that fit your budget before the price drop won't suddenly break your budget after the price drop. The payments are the same size.

Certainly this isn't painless. You might be stuck in your house and have a hard time moving because selling your house wouldn't pay off your mortgage. About ten years ago I went through a divorce with an upside-down mortage in the mix, and that definitely complicated things.

If you aren't trying to move or sell your house right now, however, if you or a co-owner haven't become unemployed, what would you need financial assistance for? Simply because it's "just not fair" to have to pay so much for something that's currently worth so little? I sympathize, but if we're going to prioritize who gets help and who doesn't, remorse over the bad timing of buying high when others around you are better off having bought low isn't going to put you at the high end of the priority scale.

[JuniperLea]

78. I'm not talking half million dollar homes... you sure are trying to extrapolate from thin air...

You need to look at the neighborhood devastation... empty homes, squatters, unkempt yards, empty homes turning gang hangouts and drug dens... and someone through no fault of their own sitting in a property they cannot sell. Even if they could, they would only be able to get half of the current mortgage principal. Are you saying they should have to eat the rest? Are you saying, suck it the fuck up and keep your kids in that neighborhood?

This is why people are walking away from mortgages. People walking away from mortgages or being foreclosed on further hurts the neighborhoods and the economy.

If this isn't happening in your area, you're pretty fucking lucky.

[Silent3]

79. Talk about being determined to be upset...

...at what other people say. I threw out the number $500K simply because I was imagining places like the San Francisco area (not where I live) where ordinary folk with ordinary incomes have paid that much for a home because, before the crash, even $500K wouldn't buy you much more than a shack.

Like the other poster says, if the shoe doesn't fit, what makes you so bound and determined to squeeze the shoe on anyway, yelping that your bad situation or someone else's isn't being considered? Tell me a specific situation, and I'll tell you what I think of some sort of government assistance for people in that situation. Finding some way for the government to help out in now-decaying neighborhoods sounds quite reasonable to me.

We decided to build a new house early last year. Because the house was built for us the price was locked in before construction started. If we had any idea how the economy was going to tank back then when we decided to build, there's no way we would have done it. We'd still be in our old house with all of the cash we'd saved up for building the new house sitting pretty in the bank. I love our new house, but at the moment I'd prefer the security of our erstwhile savings instead.

I really don't know how much we overpaid for the house, compared to what its market value was by the time it was completed, but I'm sure we lost at least a few tens of thousands of dollars. Fortunately our neighborhood is still in pretty good shape, I still have my job, we didn't go in over our heads (our debt-to-income ratio is under 20%) and the loss in value on our house is pretty much just an abstraction for us at the moment, a paper loss, unless a bad situation forces us to have to sell. We have enough equity even with the loss in value of our house to refinance it now at 4.75% (down from 6.375%), and we're taking advantage of that.

The scariest thing was having already put a down payment on the new house, and having already poured a fair amount of cash into its construction, then having the market crash before we'd even put our old house on sale. We really needed to get the old house sold before the construction of the new house was complete, we needed the proceeds from the sale, or we would have been in deep shit. Here's where we got lucky: we sold to the very first people who came to look at the old house, at 98% of our asking price.

[JuniperLea]

80. I did give you the example

Living in a regular neighborhood where homes ranged from $300k to $500k, and are now $150k to $250k, that is now a drug infested, ghetto war zone, with small children, and unable to sell the home. All it would take is one drive through the neighborhood at night with helicopters overhead and police out in force (happens several times a week now) and a prospective buyer would run away. I don't blame her for walking away from the home and the mortgage. It's just not safe physically, emotionally, or fiscally.

Unable to get any assistance at all because with a salary of $80k, and just her and two kids in the family, she "makes too much" to get any help. She is being told to suck it up, even though it's clear her children will suffer there and her hands are tied.

This is bad for us all. Bad for our neighborhoods, our welfare, and our economy.

[wryter2000]

20. I agree with most of what you say

But, it's entirely possible to have a problem making your mortgage even if you never used your house as an ATM. My mortgage is $2,400/month, and I take home $2,800/month from my job. I have extra income from my writing, but it's a huge struggle for me to make that payment. (I had my husband's Social Security when we bought the house. That ended when he died.)

I've never had a second mortgage. I've never taken out a home equity loan. We refinanced exactly once and that was to get a better rate, not to take money out.

Please don't assume that everyone who's having trouble making the mortgage used their house as an ATM. IMHO, that's just buying into the accusation that no one would be having mortgage problems if they'd acted responsibly.

[MADem]

24. Did you lose your job and have to take a lower paying one? Or did your partner/spouse? nt

[wryter2000]

31. I lost my husband's income via death

And, may I add, I got a 30 year fixed at the regular rate. I did not buy more house than I could afford. In fact, we were renting and living in the house when the landlord wanted to sell. The options were move or buy the house.

The house was appraised at $300K. It went up to $450K. Now, it's at $245K, and I owe $275K on it.

Not my fault. Sorry.

[MADem]

46. Then there should be some help for you....and a RENTER in your same position. NT

[lunatica]

25. If I had my mortgage paid off I wouldn't be screaming about this kind of help

for others right now. They would simply be like me for a year.

And I think renters could get breaks too, in other ways, like getting extra tax breaks that mean something for a year.

[droidamus2]

53. Not sure

Is your point that if something is used for the stimulus it most equal effect 100% of the people in the country? The point is the people that are holding mortgages and having a hard time of it would be helped, those that aren't having a problem would have some money freed up for stimulus purposes. I don't think this is disriminatory it is 'targeted' stimulus. If you think other people deserve some assistance, I would say the people with high credit card to could use it, then come up with a plan for them.

[MADem]

112. How about the people who need help with their car payments?

Or their credit card payments?
These debts come out of the banking industry, as well, after all.

How about people who are out of work, who could use a discount on their rent?

Why do people with mortgages get special treatment under this scenario, that's my question. They made an agreement, and it turned out to be a poor decision for them financially. Well, so did people who put their money into their 401Ks, only to see those lose half their value. Should we help them, too? Throw some money at them because the stock market "ripped them off?"

No one has given me a satisfactory answer as to why the mortgage holders should be first in line for stimulus help. They just get angry at me for posing the question.

[JuniperLea]

4. Wow... my head is reeling!

I could dump $20k into the economy... multiply that by... oh, there goes my head again!

The banks/lenders are going to take a hit on mortgages anyway. All those homes being foreclosed, and the millions of others teetering on the verge. I've personally witnessed people walking away from their homes and mortgages. Whatever the banks can do to keep people in homes and paying something, even the prospect of having payments start up again a year later.

It's a good idea. It probably won't happen, but it's a damn fine idea.

[slackmaster]

13. Not everyone who owns mortgages is a bank or lender

In the secondary market they are referred to as "investors", which include private and public employee pension plans, insurance companies, and on and on.

[JuniperLea]

16. There's the rub

That should never have been.

[slackmaster]

18. Although I have personally prospered from the secondary market, I do agree it's out of control

If firms and individuals who originate mortgages could be held accountable for the lifetime of the instrument, a lot of the problems we see now would not have happened in the first place.

[wryter2000]

30. Ding, ding, ding

If the people who sold the ARM's had known they'd have to collect the payments when the rate adjusted, they wouldn't have sold those mortgages.

[slackmaster]

45. It's not absolutely necessary that originators be stuck with collecting the payments

There are other possible ways of imposing consequences on those who write more than their fair share of bad loans. Some kind of credit scoring system, or tax penalties, etc.

[wryter2000]

42. Just a couple of months could help me a lot

I splurged on luxury dental work this year. Couldn't have the choppers look less beautiful than the Joneses, dontchaknow.

[Uben]

5. Good luck with that

How about those of us who sold a home and are carrying the note and living off that for income? What about those who invested in those loans? Where's their income gonna come from? That money didn't come out of thin air. Someone invested it so someone else could have a home. Methinks whoever came up with this idea wasn't real bright.

[MrPerson]

7. Its a disatrous idea. Here's why

1. The banks need the mortgage payment paid to lend to new borrowers.

2. If they can't lend they can't sell homes.

3. Not very mortgage holder is a bank. Private individuals would get hurt.

[JuniperLea]

17. Please...

That's what TARP and bailouts are for!

ALL lenders are being hurt, whether they are a bank, a mortgage lender, or an investor.

We can't save the world.

[MrPerson]

27. At least 80% of mortgages are not delinquent.

Its a dumb idea.

[JuniperLea]

29. Delinquent really has nothing to do with it anymore

The steady and stark decline in market value is leaving the most upstanding mortgage payer upside down... more mortgage than home value. How long do you think people are going to continue to pay a $400k mortgage for a home that is now worth $200k or less? People are walking away from mortgages like that. The banks/lenders would do well to compromise.

[MrPerson]

32. If someone is stupid enough to stop paying their mortgage

because their house decreased in value they don't deserve a house.

A deal is a deal.

[JuniperLea]

36. Oh please...

You think people are really going to continue to pay TWICE the amount that their home is worth when they have no chance of recouping and they can pay half that in rent on an identical home?

[MrPerson]

41. Actually yes. I represent people that are underwater.

Its their home. They love it. They don't care how long it takes to pay it off.

You don't understand homeowner mentality.

And the house flipping, wanna make a buck asshats can kiss my ass.

[JuniperLea]

47. I've been a homeowner for over 30 years

I think I know my own mentality, thank you very much. I also worked in real estate for seven years. I'm not talking house-flipping.

You sure don't seem to get the basics for someone supposedly so learned.

[MrPerson]

49. 25 years in the business of representing poor people

I know plenty. Maybe you just run into rich people.

[JuniperLea]

57. What a fucking bigoted thing to say

There's a whole lot of territory between "rich" and "poor" and had you been paying attention at all, you'd know that middle ground, the middle-class, is suffering now more than most. That's what this fiasco was all about! Getting rid of the middle class. Seems that suits you just fine.

:eyes:

[MrPerson]

60. Your post is incomprehensible.

[JuniperLea]

62. That's more telling of you than of me... eom

[rucky]

9. Even a month would help. nt

[baldguy]

10. A better idea is lending insurance for the banks.

TARP is a band-aid - if we continue down than road with more & more free money our exporue is in the hundreds of Trillions of dollars. We should re-regulate the banking industry immediatly, and instead of gifting them trillions of taxpayer dollars - insure their loans.

[slackmaster]

11. It doesn't seem to say how owners of the notes would be compensated for loss of income

I'd love to not pay my mortgage for a year as much as anyone would, but there are good people and institutions that depend on the predictable income from people who can and do make their payments.

[Wapsie B]

12. Everyone below a certain income level gets their mortgage paid off.

If you rent you get a check. The money still filters to the banks and pays off a chunk of bad loans in the process. It won't happen because they'd never give that kind of an incentive to the average working stiff.

[slackmaster]

15. That would create a strong disincentive for people to earn more than whatever level was set

An amazingly poorly thought out idea.

[Wapsie B]

44. I was talking about a one time payout, not a permanent yearly subsidy.

And unlike others I do not pretend to have the answers here, only questions. I was merely brainstorming.

[fizzgig]

84. does public assitance create a disincentive for people to earn more than those income levels?

[busymom]

108. YES!

We didn't have dental insurance for years despite my husband working for the big hospital/dental system in town....When I say work, I mean 100 hours a week working...He cared for those with no insurance and treated everyone the same whether they were insured or not. Our middle child was born with some teeth issues and we could not afford to get him treated. Patients who were not working got free care...we could get none. We had to wait for a couple of years to get the treatments done and at that point it was much more invasive and expensive to fix.

Was there a disincentive for him to be as helpful? Yes. Did he start to make distinctions in care? Not in quality of medical care...but it changed him.

It was not fair or right for him to work so hard to provide good care for those who were unemployed, down on their luck or on disability but then to be denied care for his own child by the same system.

[fizzgig]

110. so public assistance encourages people to continue living in poverty

just so they can continue receiving public assistance?

eta: i don't qualify for most public assistance because i don't have kids, but that doesn't mean i'm going to get pregnant just to get help.

[busymom]

111. No. That's not what I said...

[busymom]

107. Worst idea ever.

I would support free college for people below a certain income level, free daycare while they go to college/technical school or whatever.....but not paying off their mortgage.

Why is there so often this attitude here that certain groups of people should be given things free at the expense of others.

I don't understand that...

[angstlessk]

19. I don't have a mortgage, but I agree totally!!! ony it will be ONLY FOR THE HOME YOU LIVE IN

HOMESTEAD REQUIREMENT!!! Or for your SMALL BUSINESS...NO CORPORATIONS WITH OVER 100 EMPLOYEES OR MAKING PROFITS OF MORE THAN XXX???? I think it could help our as much as bailing out the banks!

[Mike 03]

22. Damn, it sounds good, but presents problems

One of the important things now is that financial institutions not have to write off a ton of losses, which would probably happen if we had something like this.

[JuniperLea]

28. Oh but they are, and will continue

To write off losses.

When someone is foreclosed on, and a house sits empty, no one is paying the bank. Then you add the steady and stark decline in property values, and you have a home that is worth far less than the mortgage. The bank/lender will never, ever sell the foreclosed and empty home for the full failed mortgage amount.

[pnwmom]

23. Why would this stimulate the economy more? As it is, mortgage payments go to

banks, who -- if things are working right -- then lend out the money, which also stimulates the economy.

The problem is that banks haven't been lending the money -- i.e., the credit freeze. That's what needs to be fixed.

[JuniperLea]

34. There are fewer people and small businesses now...

Who would actually qualify for loans. You can't loan to people who have lost their job, or are now working for half or less than they were making.

Lending only works when you have qualified borrowers. And the underwater mortgages far outweigh what is waiting in the coffers to be lent.

[pa28]

26. This would cost the government roughly what tarp did.

Hmmm. Well, we've reached the point where the government has borrowed as our creditors are willing to extend so something like this would have to be paid for with printed money.

A year ago it would have been one of those interesting but politically unrealistic ideas. Now it's just politically and financially unrealistic and way too late IMO. For those in distress maybe jingle mail is the best option at this point and perhaps some kind of credit amnesty program for people who acted in good faith but wound up getting burned.

[MadHound]

38. Foolish, dangerous idea

We're already paying for the massive trouble in the banking and financial sector. If you cut off the mortgage revenues for a year, this sector will go under, taking the rest of us with them.

There is no guarantee that people would take that extra money and spend it. Remember those stimulus checks we received? Most of that money went into savings, not spending. The same would hold true with this idea.

What would the banks and financial sector live on? Their bread and butter is the money that comes from their lending side. Take that away for a year and the industry would collapse.

Tempting idea, just like the one about giving everybody a million dollars. The trouble is, it's not well though through and it's ultimately, fatally flawed.

[dsc]

48. As a renter I find this a horribly unfair idea

I have no problem with helping out people who honestly need it, but I have major problems with in essence subsidizing people who are wealthier than I am as this would lead to.

[Thothmes]

51. Not what I want to do.

I borrowed the minimum amout of money necessary to finance my home. I have set up my finances to pay back the agreed upon amount each month. I do not want outsiders who think they have a good idea to screw up my finances for some esoteric theory about the national economy. I expect to repay my home loan in about 4 years. Why would I want to extend it to 5 years.

[Bluebear]

65. Because people are in trouble and not as fortunate as you?

[Thothmes]

67. Most people are not in trouble with their mortgages

Limit this program to those in a hole. Leave the rest of us alone

[Mike 03]

58. JuniperLea has put much thought into this

I used to love to debate these issues, but I'm not at my best right now, so I yield to others.

I'm very open to accepting other opinions and ideas about this issue.

I love DU. I learn a lot here.

[JuniperLea]

63. I have a lot of experience in the area

And I'm currently working in crisis communications, with banks, lenders, lawyers, and bankruptcy clients (businesses) crawling out of my ears. You learn a few things.

You've had a rough time lately, as I recall. :hug: I'm sure some battles here just pale in comparison.

[carlyhippy]

61. I think every family should be given a 1-time stimulus payment of 100,000.00

Most people would use it to pay off their bills. o.k. now the bills are paid, people will have freed up funds from their paychecks, and boy will they spend, spend, spend. It would be a good thing. 1 year mortgage hiatus would not give me a whole lot of money, probably pay off one of my credit cards, but if I had 100,000.00, I would not have a mortgage,actually I wouldn't have any bills at all, and my paychecks would be free to do whatever....

[tammywammy]

69. Nah, make it $1,000,000!

[carlyhippy]

73. even better, this chick could definitely jump start the economy all by herself

imagine the possibilities........

[taught_me_patience]

66. I have a better idea

give all homeowners $1million and all renters a bag of shit. My idea is almost as fair.

[roamer65]

68. It would drastically undercapitalize mortgage lenders...

and fuel the credit crisis even further.

The large banks need to be nationalized, broken up and spun off as smaller, well capitalized institutions.

Mortgage forbearance needs to be handled on a case by case basis.

[Raineyb]

85. As usual, these propositions completely leave out renters

Am I supposed to subsidize people who bought homes? I don't have a house because the overly easy credit pushed housing prices out of my reach and now I don't have one because I no longer have a job. Who's going to pay my rent when I run out of money? So you're saying let's make sure home owners can stay in their homes but renters will have to learn to live on the street when they hit the end of their rope?

This is not a good idea at all. Can we try a proposal that's a little more fair?

Regards

[Codeine]

90. We don't count.

Classism, even this twisted kind, still rules at DU.

[MADem]

93. Hey, I tried to speak up for youse guys.

And look at the crap I caught upthread for all my trouble!!

[Raineyb]

104. It would appear so.

Renters appears to be a dirty word.

Regards

[Dora]

86. No. I think student loan debt forgiveness is a better idea.

And not all student loans -- only those loans that are over a certain age, i.e., 5-10 years.

[On the Road]

89. I Personally Can't See How

putting the banks and mortgage companies out of business is way to fix the economy. Even if the mortgage payments are added to the back end, none of the companies who put up the money for those mortgages have any way of satisfying their own creditors.

[leftstreet]

94. I have a radical idea = DOUBLE OUR F**KING WAGES!

:shrug:

[busymom]

109. I agree. We need a living wage in this country.

[NashVegas]

101. One Bubble Burst Wasn't Enough For You?

Damn.