- Find a Real Estate Professional
- Realtors®
- Mortgage Lenders
- Home Improvement Pros
- Other Real Estate Services
- Review an Agent, Lender or Pro
- Marketing on Zillow
- Real Estate Agent Advertising
- Join the Professional Directory
- Popular
- Real Estate Market Reports
- More
Replies (6)
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25127
I can't say if it is a good idea or not. I see people suffering, but I am not interested in giving banks more money from the government. I worry about the long term outcome for these families in refinancing a home that will not be saleable their refi'd amount for many years. It keeps them in their home now, but for how long? I know it is too late to turn back the clock, but I sure wish that the government had done a better job of enforcing regulations already on the books and demanded that Fannie and Freddie follow established guidelines when buying loans. I am not sure that this new program will create stability, but I do hope for the best for the country and the families living underwater.
- jimmy57
- Contributions:1511
NO.
We're seen the results of the government trying to make moral judgments about who "deserves" special help (at the expense, always, of their fellow taxpayers). Trying to put low-income people in houses they couldn't afford is part of what caused this problem.
In any case, it's hard for me to believe that the same set of people who made these poor financial decisions are suddenly going to transform themselves into dependable, prudent citizens who will discipline themselves to tight budget constraints, and will stick with the program -- on principle(!?) -- while the value of their houses continue to drop.
Expect participation below projections, and a high default rate.
- Jeff Konstant, "jkonstant"
- Contributions:1970
No, I do not. The legal challenges that are going to come from this are going to be very expensive, tie up the courts and when the dust settles only a small percentage will benefit.
- supercub
- Contributions:1231
No.
The government shouldn't be involved in this period. The banks and investors, etal that took the risk on those that couldn't afford the funny money loans should take the hit on those loans along with the buyer. The same goes for those that over extended themselves by taking all their equity out of their homes and thus assuming the risk. The investor/flippers that took the risk, they can take the pain as well.
For those that are in trouble for all the regular reasons, or because of the fall out from the above, should deal with it like they have always have in normal times. It's not always fair, never has been, but it's life.
As jkonstant points out, this a legal issue. Mortgages are based on contract law, you simply can't throw it out the door. This is what washington is struggling with and why they have little power to do much of anything other than encourage the parties to the contracts to work it out.
Note; "if their mortgages are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac"
This tells you that the government is a party to the contract and why it's only for those loans. Shouldn't have happened, but through the wisdom of our political parties, it did and we let it. Shame on us and we will pay for the lesson.
The government shouldn't be involved in this period. The banks and investors, etal that took the risk on those that couldn't afford the funny money loans should take the hit on those loans along with the buyer. The same goes for those that over extended themselves by taking all their equity out of their homes and thus assuming the risk. The investor/flippers that took the risk, they can take the pain as well.
For those that are in trouble for all the regular reasons, or because of the fall out from the above, should deal with it like they have always have in normal times. It's not always fair, never has been, but it's life.
As jkonstant points out, this a legal issue. Mortgages are based on contract law, you simply can't throw it out the door. This is what washington is struggling with and why they have little power to do much of anything other than encourage the parties to the contracts to work it out.
Note; "if their mortgages are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac"
This tells you that the government is a party to the contract and why it's only for those loans. Shouldn't have happened, but through the wisdom of our political parties, it did and we let it. Shame on us and we will pay for the lesson.
- Pug05201
- Contributions:5
No there should be no mortgage bail outs.
The taxes are too high, the debt is too great, the redistrubtion of the wealth counter productive.
The Congress can not be expected to suddenly become reasonable or prudent.
I am opposed to most of the past spending by government and can not imagine why I would favor new spending.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
I just laugh at those politicians!
We are already beyond the point of no return. What has been done cannot be undone. What is required is completely replacing the government structure. It won't be a "revolution"; the system simply will collapse from within, and a new system will need to replace it. Probably still 50 to 80 years away.
They already "gave away the store" to corporate interests; and even the lowest income earners are paying 50% of their income for government bureaucracy; though it is hard for people to see as it is a little here and there, and compounded.
So the politicians carry out the predictible moves of a Tic-Tac-Toe game, and the outcome is already determined. But everything they do is counter productive to the goals they state. If they really believed what they say, they would be doing the exact opposite.
The "health care" issue is just one example. There is no "health care" and never will be. All the discussion centers around insurance, premiums, deductables, co-pays, exclusions, lawsuits, drugs, patents, subsidies, radiation, chemo-poisons, tests, machines, forms, computer databases, profit, surgery, viruses, taxes, regulations, institutional beds, and grants to reseach companies whose only goal is to keep getting research grants and roylties from patents. No politician will ever talk about real "care".
We are already beyond the point of no return. What has been done cannot be undone. What is required is completely replacing the government structure. It won't be a "revolution"; the system simply will collapse from within, and a new system will need to replace it. Probably still 50 to 80 years away.
They already "gave away the store" to corporate interests; and even the lowest income earners are paying 50% of their income for government bureaucracy; though it is hard for people to see as it is a little here and there, and compounded.
So the politicians carry out the predictible moves of a Tic-Tac-Toe game, and the outcome is already determined. But everything they do is counter productive to the goals they state. If they really believed what they say, they would be doing the exact opposite.
The "health care" issue is just one example. There is no "health care" and never will be. All the discussion centers around insurance, premiums, deductables, co-pays, exclusions, lawsuits, drugs, patents, subsidies, radiation, chemo-poisons, tests, machines, forms, computer databases, profit, surgery, viruses, taxes, regulations, institutional beds, and grants to reseach companies whose only goal is to keep getting research grants and roylties from patents. No politician will ever talk about real "care".
Do YOU Support President Obama's $75 billion Homeowner Stability Initiative?
-
- 0.0/5.0
- (no reviews)
Contributions:14Another key component would specifically help those said to be “under water” – with dwellings whose market value have sunk below the principal still owed on the mortgages. Such mortgages have traditionally been almost impossible to refinance. But the White House said its program will help 4 million to 5 million families do just that – if their mortgages are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
Homeowners don't need to be delinquent in order to get help.
This is is widely supported as well as sharply opposed by many.
What do you think? Is this a good idea.
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.