Yesterday, the Obama administration unveiled a plan on reforming and reducing the federal role on mortgages. The plan would raise the standards for mortgages and would end Fredie and Fannie.

Of course, Republicans welcomed the plan, and some Democrats came out against.
But, given the mortgage mess caused by both Freddie and Fannie and the banks, it is essential to reform both aspects of the causes, and this is a great move in my view.

We'll see how it plays out on the Hill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/11/AR2011021106421_pf.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/143445-administration-housing-plan-no-more-fannie-freddie


From the report due out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/11/AR2011021106730_pf.html

This makes too much sense, so my antennae are up. I am extremely cynical about political "good intentions" as they are typically something completely different. I agree, ptown, we have to see how this plays out.

This is 180 degrees contrary to what Obama personally believes, so far as government policies to help people buy homes.

I'm deeply, deeply suspicious of how/why it's come about and what will ultimately be involved.

I find it interesting. It sort of came from left field. I'm cautious just as you guys are.
As always, it all depends on how Congress reacts and either supports to cuts the plan in half.

And all you good people thought Barack was a socialist.


I think it's a good thing, reducing the govt.'s role in the mortgage industry. I see that you all are looking at this with a bit of a jaundiced eye. I'm sure that Congress will as well.

stlouiedipalma;675411 wrote:And all you good people thought Barack was a socialist.


I think it's a good thing, reducing the govt.'s role in the mortgage industry. I see that you all are looking at this with a bit of a jaundiced eye. I'm sure that Congress will as well.

Obama is a socialist (the American equivalent of it at least) but since the results of the November elections, he's been attempting to appear centrist for political expediency. In other words, he knows he has a huge re-election battle just around the corner.

While Fannie & Freddie need to become history and mortgage standards need reviewed, you can be sure that BHO's true colors lie beneath the centrist facade.

Obama is taking a good game here, folks, but I sincerely doubt his heart is in it. He's calling for "reform" but I'd bet my mortgage he's actually hoping interest will wane as the economy improves. He can tell his critics that he made overtures to the idea but no one was serious about making it stick.

IMHO this is all fluff and in the end will be just standard political posturing.

It could all be posturing, who knows? We'll have to see how this all plays out before we know for sure.

Huge re-election battle? Possibly, but given the who's who of GOP contenders out there I don't know that it will be tough.

100% "standard political posturing"

If the economy doesn't improve dramatically in the next year the Repubs could run Nancy Pelosi and beat BHO. lol

believer;675439 wrote:If the economy doesn't improve dramatically in the next year the Repubs could run Nancy Pelosi and beat BHO. lol

Unsure. Right now, at 9% unemployment, the President's approval rating has been between 45-55%.

Too many things can happen between now and then though, if the economy stays the same, it still might be enough to allow him to win.

But, I actually think the President is sincere about this move. I honestly think the market crash forced him to move toward the center policy wise. While, he may want something different, he knows he cannot govern there. It is a great example of setting aside personal views for what is best for the country. (Something W rarely did, until the very end).

But, how Congress reacts is the key.

A coalition of progressive groups, including the National Council of La Raza and the NAACP, released a statement Friday expressing concern about all three proposals, saying the first two "would entirely fail" to meet the goal of ensuring that families have access to credit and "will instead marginalize communities of color."

Must be a decent plan if these crazy groups have issues with it. You have to do what is best for the majority, not these fringe groups. I'm with the rest of you though, Obama can't really like this.

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of what Barry is really up to.....

iclfan2;675556 wrote:You have to do what is best for the majority

....excuse me sir, we're going to need you to chop up that GOP member card.

ptown_trojans_1;675450 wrote:Unsure. Right now, at 9% unemployment, the President's approval rating has been between 45-55%.

Too many things can happen between now and then though, if the economy stays the same, it still might be enough to allow him to win.

Perhaps, but it's a damning indicator that we now see "official" unemployment figures of 9% as "good enough" to insure the re-election of a sitting president. Not long ago anything above 5% would be a huge hurdle in a re-election bid.

But I will say that if BHO is serious about stiffening mortgage standards and eliminating Fannie & Freddie and is successful at doing so, then - yes - he becomes a whole lot more re-electable.

It isn't "good enough" but the not long ago that you speak of wasn't during an economic downturn of this size so it really isn't right to compare.

Once again, stupid Americans and greedy bankers will ruin it for the rest of us. FHMA or whatever it is letting people buy homes for 3-5% down is a good thing for the fiscally responsible. You have to debate the opportunity cost of your money for paying interest (pre-tax!) vs. a return you can get investing, but generally if you let me leverage an asset that is virtually guaranteed to be worth more in 30 years (even after the bubble) I will take as much as you give me. Mostly ARM's that got all the stupid and irresponsible into trouble, but I feel for those who WERE responsible and simply couldn't make payments because of losing a job.

This sounds like a good idea

Hmmm. Not sure I have a problem with this, other than being suspicious

Truthfully, there's nothing wrong with being a renter/leaser. Too many people look at monthly payments as a deciding factor on whether to buy a house, not taking into consideration things like: property taxes, insurance, upkeep, etc. which really makes it tight for them. And then if they DO end up losing their job(s) they find that they have nothing saved to help out with. That's when we see problems.

At first glance, I'm thinking that Barack is taking a page out of Slick Willie's book of fiscal conservatism.

I'm waiting it out to see what comes of this, but on its face, I actually like it. In my book, less government intervention in private enterprise is almost ALWAYS a good thing. It seems to fly contrary to his previous modus operandi, so I'm balking at it as a true goal, but if it is, then I'm actually impressed with President Obama ... pleasantly so.

CenterBHSFan;676237 wrote: Truthfully, there's nothing wrong with being a renter/leaser. Too many people look at monthly payments as a deciding factor on whether to buy a house, not taking into consideration things like: property taxes, insurance, upkeep, etc. which really makes it tight for them. And then if they DO end up losing their job(s) they find that they have nothing saved to help out with. That's when we see problems.

True, but if you can afford $800 a month in rent, you can afford an $800 a month mortgage, and the tax deduction should pretty well close to cover the other stuff. Then you have something to show for it. Most people are screwed either way if they lose a job - the old rule of thumb used to be 6 months of savings, and now more like 12 months, maybe 18.

I see that Obama's plan of minimizing the risk of another housing bubble has all the righties here all befuddled. Here's a thought...how about a tip of the cap to a president that is doing the right thing? God knows Bush didn't do shit to curb the unregulated monstrocity.

I find it amusing that whenever the banks were being hammered by this administration for their stake in the h. bubble, the same crowd cried foul. Makes me SMH at how partisanship damages brain cells.

I don't know what his goal is here, but if he were to eliminate Fannie and Freedie (which he won't), all he would have to do is break up the big banks and I would vote for him in 2012.

Footwedge;676393 wrote:I see that Obama's plan of minimizing the risk of another housing bubble has all the righties here all befuddled.

Oh we're not befuddled. Like O-Trap says, BHO is simply mimicking Bill Clinton at this point....you know, get your ass kicked in a mid-term election and then pretend "you've seen the light" and have decided to govern from the center.

Obama keeps making speeches about the need for the Feds to get its fiscal house in order while making separate speeches about spending even more taxpayer dollars on frivolous bullshit like high-speed rail for example.

If BHO is serious about the Fannie/Freddie/mortgage standards thing I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong, but BHO has a track record of talking about being fiscally responsible while spending like a drunken sailor.

If he truly wants the private sector to take this over, then that's a plan most Americans will support. Obama is in full re-election mode, and it may end up working for all of us. can hope for the best, but the dems have put us in worse shape than the repubs did. Checks and balances are now in place thanks to the American voters in 2010 so we'll see if thise puts us on the right path.

O-Trap;676275 wrote:It seems to fly contrary to his previous modus operandi, so I'm balking at it as a true goal, but if it is, then I'm actually impressed with President Obama ... pleasantly so.

THIS is exactly what he's looking for.