Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you do to sell them all? What kinds of programs are going to be needed to entice buyers? How do you ensure that you buy these homes at discounted prices so that you can sell for at least a meager profit or breakeven?
Remember, you have to get at least $700 Billion for them at the end of the day (2010, 2011, 2012?), so you can't drop the price lower than what you pay. This isn't just "paper" being bought, there are properties attached.
They're not buying the homes, they're buying the loans. Big difference.
Ah, good point. Not all of the loans are bank repossessions. But they are "high-risk" loans for the ones that are not yet foreclosed. How do we keep a large majority of them from going into default?
Ah, good point. Not all of the loans are bank repossessions. But they are "high-risk" loans for the ones that are not yet foreclosed. How do we keep a large majority of them from going into default?
And is it our job to do so?
Tom Harkin(D-Iowa) thinks we should just give the money to the homeowners in distress to pay their mortgages.
you haven't learned anything in this debate forum, but most of these people do not have any understanding of what is actually happening or being discussed. but if you really do understand then here is a alternate solution that doesn't require US or the Treasury to own the paper.
This is NEWTGINGRICH's plan:
I think, first of all, they should replace the current snapshot to market with a rolling three-year average.
I think, second, they should change the current loan reserve pattern so it's not pro-cyclical.
I think, third, they should zero capital gains.
I think, fourth, they need to adopt an energy plan to keep about $500 billion a year here at home instead of going overseas.
But on a practical level, if they need to open up a window to loan money to treasury plus 2 percent, and people want to come in and borrow the money and the responsibility (ph) of a workout not a bailout, and those people want to work their way out over the next three to five years. I'm comfortable saying this is a liquidity crisis; let's meet it; let's loan the money. But let's make sure they are responsible for their bad debt, and they're going to work their way out.
This idea that we're going to buy the paper and some bureaucrat in Washington is going to be responsible for $700 billion in bad paper, I think, is socialism at its worst. I can't imagine why this administration is doing it. I think it is profoundly wrong, and I hope it is defeated if it comes to the floor in this form.
you haven't learned anything in this debate forum, but most of these people do not have any understanding of what is actually happening or being discussed. but if you really do understand then here is a alternate solution that doesn't require US or the Treasury to own the paper.
This is NEWTGINGRICH's plan:
I think, first of all, they should replace the current snapshot to market with a rolling three-year average.
I think, second, they should change the current loan reserve pattern so it's not pro-cyclical.
I think, third, they should zero capital gains.
I think, fourth, they need to adopt an energy plan to keep about $500 billion a year here at home instead of going overseas.
But on a practical level, if they need to open up a window to loan money to treasury plus 2 percent, and people want to come in and borrow the money and the responsibility (ph) of a workout not a bailout, and those people want to work their way out over the next three to five years. I'm comfortable saying this is a liquidity crisis; let's meet it; let's loan the money. But let's make sure they are responsible for their bad debt, and they're going to work their way out.
This idea that we're going to buy the paper and some bureaucrat in Washington is going to be responsible for $700 billion in bad paper, I think, is socialism at its worst. I can't imagine why this administration is doing it. I think it is profoundly wrong, and I hope it is defeated if it comes to the floor in this form.
Yeah, I saw Newt's discussion and found it interesting. What's the benefit of a rolling 3 year average vs. a snapshot? I only know enough to be dangerous on a lot of this , but I know enough to know this current proposal stinks.
We simply cannot just take this bag of pooh out of the hands of these troubled lenders. It will still be pooh. It needs to be reworked into something that is sustainable. Forget "grow" the economy like Bush is talking, let's STABILIZE first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
, but I know enough to know this current proposal stinks.
