We've seen plenty of credible reports and diaries pointing out why markets have no confidence in the current style of "rescue", where banks and Wall Street get "bailed out" but individuals' home foreclosures continue. It's not just unfair and immoral -- it doesn't stop the bleeding at the source, it just cleans up symptoms.
McCain - in his usual inarticulate, angry way - proposed during last week's Town Hall debate that homeowners should be rescued - should be paying down mortgages for uninflated home values with reasonable fixed interest rates like 5%.
Let's admit that if Obama said this, we'd be thrilled and jump on board! In fact, Obama said the recent bailout bill included this. Then the next day his campaign said it was too expensive and it was all forgotten.
Can anyone explain why $200B is "too expensive" to help homeowners and stop the flood, while 1 trillion is available for Wall Street and banks?
Is the only really sound solution to the financial crisis - the only one aimed at middle class homeowners ripped off by the financial industry's Ponzi schemes - Dead On Arrival simply because it came from the mouth of uncredible idiot McCain?
Hillary Clinton first proposed a freeze on foreclosures back in December 2007. I'm no fan of HRC, but it's such a good idea, it could actually have prevented a key cause of the current financial crisis, and put the pain on the people who deserve it - the ones who pretended the riskiest middle class borrowers should pay variable interest rates 20% and higher on loans.
So please explain Obama's position on stopping foreclosures. Right now this feels like another FISA debacle - Toe the party line to get elected; Don't try anything risky like a bold, principled proposal.
Please let's have grown up comments. I'm not a pro-McCain troll. I was never a Hillary supporter. And I'm not trying to undermine Obama.
The opposite - let's follow Obama's advice and put aside politics enough to discuss intelligent answers to very difficult questions.
Anybody here got any answers?
By the way, I've seen lots of great answers -- on Democracy Now, and referred to by finanical experts, in this diary for example -- but I don't see anyone in the government talking about them. Except maybe (barf) McCain. WHY???
UPDATE:
McCain's plan was actually to another plan to help banks, not homeowners.
But as eyeswideopen points out:
much better is the idea of going after predatory lenders and suing them -- just this week, Bank of America was forced to renegotiate nearly half a million home loans that were failing as a settlement of a suit concerning Countrywide's (you'll recall that Bank of America bought Countrywide) violation of predatory lending laws.
Cost to taxpayers? Zero. The sweet smell of justice!
So a real leader might say, "My solution won't be expensive. Any bank that expects survive this crisis will take that kind of action without waiting to be sued. The American people won't be offering help to any other kind."
I want to believe Obama's got what it takes.