Skip to main content

Obama
In September, President Obama spoke with Texas Governor Rick Perry to discuss
the governor's request for Federal aid to help his state's firefighters. Congressional Republicans have obstructed Obama's jobs bill which would fund first responders. (White House photo)
 
Jackie Calmes:
With his jobs plan stymied in Congress by Republican opposition, President Obama on Monday will begin a series of executive-branch actions to confront housing, education and other economic problems over the coming months, heralded by a new mantra: “We can’t wait” for lawmakers to act.

According to an administration official, Mr. Obama will kick off his new offensive in Las Vegas, ground zero of the housing bust, by promoting new rules for federally guaranteed mortgages so that more homeowners, those with little or no equity in their homes, can refinance and avert foreclosure.

And Wednesday in Denver, the official said, Mr. Obama will announce policy changes to ease college graduates’ repayment of federal loans, seeking to alleviate the financial concerns of students considering college at a time when states are raising tuition.

So even as House and Senate Republicans sit on their hands, willfully sabotaging the economy in order to destroy the Obama presidency, President Obama will take whatever steps he can to strengthen the economy. Obviously, there's a limit to what he can do without congressional action, but short of a revelation on the part of Republicans, that's not going to happen, so this is pretty much the only thing President Obama can do until voters throw the Republicans out.

As Calmes reported, he'll be starting with housing issues in Las Vegas, the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis. AP elaborates:

An Obama administration official says President Barack Obama will announce new rules Monday to help homeowners with little or no equity in their homes refinance their mortgages to avoid foreclosures.

The new program will apply to homeowners with federally guaranteed mortgages who are current on their payments. It cuts the cost of refinancing and removes caps for deeply underwater borrowers.

And while President Obama is doing what he can to boost consumer spending and put underwater homeowners on more secure financial grounds, don't forget what Mitt Romney is proposing for housing:

Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy up homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up, and let it turn around and come back up.

The Obama administration has slow-walked the foreclosure processes that have long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang.

And he's supposedly the reasonable one. Insane.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What's he doing for those who have already been (15+ / 0-)

    foreclosed on and for those who may have missed a payment or two but are not yet in foreclosure?

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:31:51 AM PDT

    •  They have been thrown under the bus. Even this (10+ / 0-)

      action is reportedly giving cover to TBTF banks socializing losses?

      Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:42 PM PDT
      RED ALERT: Biggest Bank Sweetheart Deals of All Time?
      by Michael LuxFollow
      US state and federal officials plan to give the country’s largest mortgage servicers wider protection against legal claims in exchange for refinancing help for existing borrowers, as talks on a $25bn settlement of alleged foreclosure improprieties advance.

      The proposed agreement would settle allegations that Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial engaged in faulty mortgage practices, including employing so-called “robosigners” – agents who processed foreclosure filings en masse without examining the underlying paperwork – that abused homeowners’ rights and led to wrongful home seizures. The banks declined to comment.


      •  that is from a financial times article (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Imhotepsings, askew

        which requires a subscription to read.  but that bit you've quoted doesn't answer zen's question of what about people who have already been foreclosed on/currently involved in a lawsuit, etc.

        nor does it explain how people who have missed a payment or two, but are not yet in foreclosure have been "thrown under the bus" here.  sounds like that's exactly the people this is intended to help?

        My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

        by Cedwyn on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:54:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No bank left behind, but many left under the bus (4+ / 0-)

          Foreclosure crisis:Home not where the federal aid has been

          More than 6 million Americans are behind on their mortgage payments or facing foreclosure. Housing prices have continued to drop, and many neighborhoods across the U.S. are filled with foreclosed homes.

          What exactly has the Obama administration done in the face of such historic need? We’ve put together a guide to the administration’s major efforts to help homeowners, laying out the promise of each and how they’ve performed.

          It’s a sobering list. President Barack Obama has called his approach to the foreclosure crisis one of his biggest mistakes dealing with the recession. Overall, the foreclosure programs have failed to reach more than a fraction of the homeowners they were designed to help.

  •  I posted a diary (23+ / 0-)

    I strongly believe that President Obama is not being well served by his advisers.

    the biggest beneficiary of the revised housing program is Bank of America. This is a back door bail out  of that venal, inept institution so they can prey again on consumers.

    Billions of dollars in 'put backs' that belong to Fannie/Freddie will be extinguished by this action. That is billions in the pockets of BAC executive management.

    •  Agreed. (10+ / 0-)

      Now who can we hold responsible for choosing (and sticking with) those advisers?

      Tunis...Cairo...Tripoli...Wall Street

      by GreenSooner on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:47:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  considering he has no effective (7+ / 0-)

      legal authority to just wipe out the existing loans, private contracts protected by the Constitution, how can he help homeowners stay in homes in a way that doesn't ultimately serve the banks that get rid of a loan likely to end up in the non-performing category?

      •  Where do guys get your information? (20+ / 0-)

        Fox? Rush Limbaugh?

        Fannie/Freddie have the right to put the mortgage back to the originating bank if there was any error in the documentation.

        The loan is isn't wiped out -- just the guarantee by Fannie and Freddie.

        The risk of the loans belong to the originating bank.

        And that risk is now removed by this plan.

        •  Yes... (6+ / 0-)

          This is a sub rosa bailout by letting the criminal banks off the hook.

          •  anything that gives a borrower (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ronnied, Imhotepsings

            a better loan lets some bank off the hook.   Unless of course, you have a better and legally enforceable plan.

            •  No, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Abelia, TBug, Mr Robert, denise b

              Right now those loans have a Freddie/Fannie Guarantee. Any modification comes out of Fannie/Freddie. The bank has lost nothing -- they sold the mortgage.

              The laws says Fannie/Freddie have the right put back mortgages to the originating bank, get their money back and terminate the federal guaranatee.

              The bank is now on the hook for the entire mortgage. They will be offering toasters to get people to re-negotiate the principal balance.

              •  no they won't (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cany, Imhotepsings, ggwoman55

                there are lots of people who have loans with BOA, not FNMA or Freddie, and BOA is not offering toasters to refinance.   They are foreclosing.   We see new foreclosures from numerous banks in many capacities, whether as servicers for FNMA, FDIC assignees cleaning up behind a failed bank or the individual bank, it is all happening.

                And not all loans FNMA and Freddie took are bad loans, most have perfectly good paperwork, assignment issues such as the MERS issues written about, don't apply equally across all states, either.    So there is a pool of homeowners who could be helped.

                If BOA has to take a loss in any event, trim the principal and lower the interest rate before default, why would they be re-negotiating the balance and giving a toaster as boot?   And have you actually talked to anyone who has tried to renegotiate with BOA? Or any other big lender?  It is pretty obvious after you've been around the block a couple times that few people get anywhere on their existing loans.  Which is why so much HAMP money is sitting there.

                If you had said, this simply will end up like HAMP and not help homeonwers on a large scale, I might have agreed with you.

                •  All the loans in President Obama's program (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mr Robert, mightymouse

                  are owned by Fannie/Freddie so not sure of the relevance of your point to mine -- that Fannie/Freddie have put back rights.

                  If Fannie/Freddie have the right  to put the loan back, they have Constitutional duty to put that loan back -- even if it is simple as a name spelled wrong.

                  No bank/lender has any incentive to renegotiate -- the risk is borne by Fannie/Freddie.

                  A non-conforming subprime loan is probably trading $0.25 on the dollar so if the bank can re-fi that $0.50, they would do so and offer a toaster.

                  The minute Fannie/Freddie guarantee goes away, the bank has a non-conforming subprime loan on its books

                  •  do you have a link for his plan (0+ / 0-)

                    that says it applies only to the Fannie/Freddie owned loans, because the articles in the links don't say that.

                    Loans written to the FNMA standards may be sold to Fannie/Freddie or offered in private packages, the MBS', so a federally 'guaranteed loan' is not necessarily an owned loan.

                    And just a name mispelling is generally covered by a poa or other corrective agreement to the lender at closing that allows typographical errors to be corrected unilaterally, so no, just a name mistyped can't force a loan to be taken back.

                    •  Seriously, (0+ / 0-)

                      do you think the POTUS can tell banks to accept lower credit standards on the loan if it was guaranteed by Fannie/Freddie?

                      That sounds like what you see on GOOPER websites, Barney Frank forced banks to make loans to Negros and gays.

                      All that matters is the guarantee, the put back relates to put back the guarantee.

                      Why not be aggressive, tell the bank that you are putting back the mortgage and have them take F/F to court. F/F will still make good on the default but will now come to the bank. Banks will settle in a heartbeat.

                      Would the President show the same courage that JFK showed during the missile crisis.

                      •  again with the insults (0+ / 0-)

                        when I asked for a link to substantiate a factual claim you made?  Why would you even do that?

                        The guarantee is not synonomous with ownership as you originally claimed.  The risks, rights and losses are different.

                        You have now changed your claims as to what could be done and how.  You claim banks will settle in a heartbeat without acknowledging banks haven't been settling with their borrowers in a heartbeat on loans they already own.

                        Later articles have said this is a reworking of the HARP program, maybe a million borrowers who would be eligible.  And again, the guaranteed loans, not limited to loans owned by Fannie and Freddie.

                        This is not about courage,  it is about making assertions of what can be done legally, what is actually likely to happen versus mere talk.

                        •  What are you talking about???????? (0+ / 0-)

                          Guarantee is not synonymous with ownership??????

                          How is the frigging risk any different?  How are the losses any different?????

                          A homeowner defaults.  F/F have to make good. The loss is the same whether they own the mortgage or they guarantee the mortgage.

                          In simple English, when the homeowner defaults, F/F own the mortgage.

                          •  a guarantee depends on default (0+ / 0-)

                            having happened, if the borrower is paying, there is no call on the guarantee.  By definition, these loans aren't in default.  So eligibility is broader than Fannie and Freddie ownership,  and not every loan is a bad loan eligible for put back.   These refinances may help avoid foreclosures, they may help homeowners who want to save their homes and save real people struggling to make ends meet be able to do just that with less stress.  Stress over debt kills people.

                            That it indirectly benefits a bank on a guaranteed loan, that will be a new guaranteed loan more likely to be paid, shouldn't stop the program from happening.   And Fannie and Freddie have been buying loans for years, not every loan they owned was originated as a subprime or poorly underwritten.  But those people can lose jobs, have illness, and need to reduce an ARM loan to a fixed rate loan, or simply a lower interest rate, etc.

                          •  Put backs aren't dependent on default (0+ / 0-)

                            Fannie/Freddie have an obligation not to wait until default  to put a loan back.  

                            If they know  loan has bad docs, they should put it back immediately.

                            If  a loan is about to re-financed and the risk of that new loan is on F/F, F/F have a duty to maker sure the original loan was valid and put it back it wasn't.  They need not take the risk of the new loan.

                            There is no difference between guarantee and ownership in terms of credit risk.  

                          •  you can pretend all day (0+ / 0-)

                            long that every loan is bad, but that won't make it true. This affects more lenders than BOA (and more accurately the Countryside portfolio purchased by BOA).  Plus, Fannie settled many of its issues with BOA, it took money, it won't be exercising the put backs in many cases.  

                             If the loans aren't in default, there are no paper work issues, then the only thing that really happens is that homeowners get help.

                            The new loan will not necessarily be more risky, it may be less risky, and its paperwork may be perfectly good, too.

                            You are running off a lot of accusation, claims and things you  aren't supporting with facts.  Still waiting on the links or some reference to the law to substantiate your claims.  Fannie/Freddie/FHA have about half the loans after an agressive buy up program.  That means half the loans, many of which are as underwater as anything in the GSE's portfolios, are still out there to be dealt with.  And again, those banks don't rush into making new loans with ordnary homeowners who are underwater, they have had three years to do that.   They haven't done it.  So your rosy scenario of the banks will do it is just plain wrong.

          •  Let me try and understand this. (0+ / 0-)

            Are you saying that if the bank does not foreclose then they retain all the money that it would have cost them to  go through the foreclosure process, and have the unsold property on their books?  Or is it something else?

            "I don't want to blame anyone. I just want to know how lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs" --Informed citizen at Congressional town hall

            by Time Waits for no Woman on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:56:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  With critiques like these, how can Obama do right? (32+ / 0-)

          So if any mortgage relief program looks like it also helps banks, it's wrong, no matter who else it helps, like the borrowers? And it's too little and too late, so anything now is wrong? Sounds like the GOP criticizing our approach to Libya, where nothing could be right if Obama does it.

          I certainly agree that TARP should have had mortgage-relief, just as even Paulson first proposed, and relief could be extended now to anyone who's on the edge of default despite good faith efforts to make payments ... but a broad gauge challenge to unnamed advisors?

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:22:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He's had great success in foreign policy, where (14+ / 0-)

            he's not subject to GOP obstruction. People need to take a trip back down memory lane to the very beginning of his admin. when the obstruction got ramped up.

            Some people have walked out on a limb with their "Obama's in the pockets of the banks" narrative, so there's nothing you could ever say that will make them change that narrative.
            Of course, a lot of this narrative is the product of the GOP.

          •  That's the long and short of it (12+ / 0-)

            You can either fuck the banks or you can try to help homeowners in mortgage trouble.

            You really can't do both effectively.  Doesn't matter if you're talking about the DOJ settlement talks with banks, pushing GSE gurantees back onto banks or whatever.

            Hey - I certainly get the desire to do both, but it's a pretty simple choice for progressives... you can't do both, so what do you want to do?

            Stick it to the banks or help people stay in their homes?

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:53:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bingo. (6+ / 0-)
            "So if any mortgage relief program looks like it also helps banks, it's wrong, no matter who else it helps, like the borrowers? "

            Yes. Exactly.

            If we do not punish the banks, we will create a massive moral hazard that will come back to bite us again.

            The pain began in the 1980's when Regan/Bush bailed out the savings and loans. That taught investors that the Government could be spooked into coughing out bailouts. Long Term Capital and the current bailout further embedded moral hazard deep into the system.

            Enough is enough. We need bank shareholders to get zerored out and we need bank bondholders to take huge haircuts. We need bank executives to be fined and jailed. Only by dishing out punishment can we teach banks not to do this to us again.

            Any plan that lets banks slide might work in the short term...but in 2025 or 2030 we will be back in the same place, with the same banks begging for another handout.

            •  And so we just let homeowners be foreclosed on? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Imhotepsings, SaintC

              That's hard to accept.  I have four friends in my neighborhood alone that have lost their homes, and two more on the brink.

              I don't think I can support that.

              202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

              by cany on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:31:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes. (6+ / 0-)

                If you cannot make the payments, you don't get to keep the house.

                However...your friends may find that they will not get foreclosed on that quickly. Many times the bank doesn't want the house, or can't afford the write-down of value that would result from an auction. This is especially true if Fannie Mae puts the loan back on the bank's books.

                Right now, the bank can foreclose and make Fannie eat the loss. But if Fannie invokes their put option, the banks must eat the loss. Homeowners would have bargaining power.

                Besides, all this talk of "helping homeowners" is...well...(looks around uncomfortably)...bull-crap.
                The way to help homeowners is through massive economic stimulus that creates jobs.  If your neighbors had jobs they would not be getting foreclosed on.

                •  I just cannot let my neighbors be foreclosed on. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ManhattanMan

                  I love them.  Can't. Go. There.

                  How are we to support your position to do this when there doesn't appear to be any political infrastructure in place to make it happen?

                  You may be right, technically, but there is no WAY to get there!?

                  And furthermore, it makes me damn angry when I read:

                  If you cannot make the payments, you don't get to keep the house.

                  In every one of these cases, it was the economy and lack of work that resulted in these foreclosures.  THAT is not their fault.  We all know how and why it happened.  So suggesting that people who had NO hand in that take the hit is untenable.

                  202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

                  by cany on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:17:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oops... that second para in the block shouldn't be (0+ / 0-)

                    in the block.  That is my response to your one liner.

                    Not mad at YOU, just really disagree on that point.

                    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

                    by cany on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:19:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Then Obama can hold them hostage (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cany, wsexson

                    and do whatever he wants to you, can't he?

                    The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

                    "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

                    by Punditus Maximus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:36:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not sure where you are going with this... (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't understand what you are saying.

                      Look, there isn't any way to GET THERE.  That's a statement of fact.

                      Conjuring up solutions is great... more power to you... but without a means of getting it done, it remains an idea.  

                      At least the President's idea might actually HELP people.  You know, in reality.

                      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

                      by cany on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:44:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not if Obama does it. (0+ / 0-)

                        Obama's made clear that he thinks people behind on their mortgages "deserve" to lose their houses.  If he's changed, that's fine.  But I doubt it.

                        The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

                        "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

                        by Punditus Maximus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:58:59 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You are correct that... (0+ / 0-)

                    "...it was the economy and lack of work that resulted in these foreclosures.  THAT is not their fault...."  

                    The solution is to fix the economy and fix the lack of work.

                    We need to attack the disease, not the symptom.

                    Also think of the politics: Millions of people did not take the risk of buying a house. They stayed in cramped apartments, put up with neighborhoods they didn't like and did their laundry in a laundromat instead of in a New House with a Brand New Utility (laundry) Room.

                    Can you look these people in the eye and tell them that they get nothing while those who took risks get free houses?  We cannot win an election like that.

          •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SaintC, michelewln, jfromga

            I saw the headline and was delighted...more than.. I understand there are very serious concerns, but I mean really can we not be pleased at some very tangible relief for at least some people.

            I swear if he cured cancer and reversed global warming...no one would be happy...can we leave some of this O bashing to the Repubs ...it's one of the few things they are good at...

          •  Obama can prosecute bankers who committed fraud. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr Robert

            He can tell the DOJ that they're allowed to do it now.  That's what he can do right.

            The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

            "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

            by Punditus Maximus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:35:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And the bank wouldn't foreclose if the lender (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jfromga

          is current; if the lender isn't, the bank will just foreclose.

          That's not much of a plan if the goal is to help homeowners.

          •  What about this case? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jfromga
            Our daughter and her husband bought a suburban Chicago townhome with no money down during the peak of the bubble. Their P&I on a near 7% $200,000 loan is over $1,300 monthly and they are approximately $50,000 underwater on the current value of their home.

            They have never missed a payment in 4 ½ years but continue to be turned down for a new lower interest mortgage that would save them nearly $5,000 yearly. Despite having a stellar credit rating, they are told they must cover the $50,000 lost equity as a down payment to qualify for refinancing.

            Our daughter’s employer is laying off workers, and she fears for her job while our son in law’s company is doubling their health insurance costs next year. Their 1st child was born last year, and the added expense is further stressing their monthly budget.

            Our kids do not want to walk away from the townhome. They are just looking to pay the same low interest rates so many others enjoy. They ask me why the Treasury loans billions to banks at essentially 0% interest while the banks tell honorable kids to go to hell. I don’t have an answer for them.

            From the comments section at the NY Times:

            http://community.nytimes.com/...

            "I don't want to blame anyone. I just want to know how lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs" --Informed citizen at Congressional town hall

            by Time Waits for no Woman on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 10:18:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My son & daughter-in-law are in almost exactly the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jfromga

              same situation.  If they could get a loan modification, it would mean a world of difference for them.  I don't understand why ALL the emphasis is on refinancing for people who will still not be able to make payments.  Isn't that a big part of what this mess is about, the Government forcing banks to sell homes to people who could not afford them?  Just delaying the inevitable.

              These young kids, and their children, are the ones who will be taking on the repayment of our massive debt.  Seems like it would be wise to be looking out for their financial well-being.

        •  you are mighty (6+ / 0-)

          big with the accusations about the ignorance of others.

          If the plan is to help the homeowner, how does re-assigning the loan to the originator help the homeowner?  Does that remove the default potential, keep the originator from foreclosing, put more money in the homeowner's pocket or increase demand and loans so that prices rise and millions still aren't underwater?

          So please tell me what Obama can do to help the homeowner who has no equity, can't refinance under existing rules and still owes every month, and without Congress, if it is something other than relaxing refinance rules so they qualify.  And no I never listen to Rush, but I got my law degree and have worked with loans, banks, FDIC, etc for a long long time.

          Your response is the equivalent of Romney's, let the foreclosure proceed.    Changing pockets (FNMA to originator) doesn't help homeowners.  I am not defending getting the banks of the hook, I am asking how to get the homeowner into a new loan that stops a foreclosure potential on an upside down mortgage.  How do you get a borrower whose loan stepped up four or five points in the fixed to arm provisions to get a lower interest rate.

          Great, you hate the banksters and the administration, and everything they do is evil.  I asked for an alternative that helps homeowners and doesn't go beyond the presidential powers or the Constitutional prohibition on destruction of existing contract rights.

          And quite frankly, a plan like the FDR loan program that refinanced home loans for people (saving the original banks the risk) was popular and effective.  If we had had that program three years ago, things might be looking better for homeowners.  It still would have helped banks.  

          So give me something better than screw the homeowners as long as the banks lose too.

          •  still trying to understand (0+ / 0-)

            You say:  "So please tell me what Obama can do to help the homeowner who has no equity, can't refinance under existing rules and still owes every month,"

            But Calmes says:

            According to an administration official, Mr. Obama will kick off his new offensive in Las Vegas, ground zero of the housing bust, by promoting new rules for federally guaranteed mortgages so that more homeowners, those with little or no equity in their homes, can refinance and avert foreclosure.

            ????

            "I don't want to blame anyone. I just want to know how lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs" --Informed citizen at Congressional town hall

            by Time Waits for no Woman on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:00:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  this is the plan Barry S is attacking (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cany, Adam AZ, divineorder, Imhotepsings

              as helping banks.  So if you like the plan because the announced intention is to allow refinances for homeowners in financial distress,  would you kill it because the current loan may be paid off and BOA gets a 'back door bailout'?

              Barry S is essentially saying FNMA or Freddie should just 'reassign the loan' if they can.  Your question illustrates the fallacy in his position.   I am asking how reassignment helps the homeowner.  I am asking what he would do instead?  Because reassigning the loan does nothing for homeowners.   This plan will help some homeowners for whom a lower monthly payment will make the difference between foreclosure and not, and spreading the paycheck further so that keeping the house looks like a better option.   It is far from a panacea.

          •  this is the first thing I've read that actually (4+ / 0-)

            sorts this back and forth out for me somewhat.  If I understand:  Obama could leave these matters completely in the banks' hands, not taking these mortages from them and let the banks continue to screw people out of their homes.  

            Or, he can let the banks off the hook financially, but potentially save many people from losing their homes and allowing refinancing at current value through the government plan?

            But he can't do both.  Is that right?  

            "We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." Justice Louis Brandeis

            by livjack on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:03:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  in the current circumstances (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Imhotepsings

              he can't do both.   He cannot simply set aside the loan contracts between the banks and the borrowers   There are some loans that can be attacked because of inadequate documentation of transfers in some states.  But not all states, and it is a matter of state dirt law (real estate) not federal law to attack the underlying debt obligation.  To the extent a loan was transferred to a GSE, Fannie, Freddie, etc., then than loan may be returned to the original bank if it doesn't meet the lending rules in effect or other issues, such as fraud or inadequacy of the documentation increasing the government risk, exists.  But that merely changes who is the holder of the debt and does not address at the federal level the existence of the debt between lender and borrower.

              So to the extent that the President controls the administrative process and can relax rules for refinances to include a larger group of homeowners in marginal financial circumstances, he can help keep a few more families in their homes.   But the original 'bad loan' whether on FNMA's books or Bank of America's books, goes away with the refinance.  So the old lender gets a financial benefit too.

            •  No you are missing the point (4+ / 0-)

              1) The banks sold the mortgages to Fannie/Freddie

              2) If the homeowner defaults, Fannie/Freddie are on the hook

              3) The GOOPERs won't let Fannie/Freddie do massive modifications (the Santelli rant)

              4) However, Fannie/Freddie can put the mortgages back to the banks

              5) We aren't saying that the mortgage is no good, just that Fannie/Freddie are no longer going to eat the loss on the default

              6) The bank that had no risk now suddenly has some real risk

              7) They don't need GOOPER approval to modify the terms

              8) Banks will be offering toasters to homeowners to accept modifications

          •  Try once again (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            divineorder, Mr Robert

            1) Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac can put back mortgages to the originating bank if there is any error in the mortgage docs. That laws been on the books since days of LBJ

            2) The bank that made the loan has no incentive to negotiate -- they have zero risk -- all the risk is with Fannie/Freddie

            3) Fannie/Freddie can't make major loan modifications because of the GOOPERs

            4) By putting the mortgages back to the bank -- the risk is taken from Fannie/Freddie and placed on the shoulders of the bank

            5) The bank has to re-negotiate the terms of the mortgage (in terms of rate and principal) or face the costs of a defaut

            6) This plan hurts the homeowner and helps the banks

            •  If you don't want to help the homeowner, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Imhotepsings, jfromga

              then your plan is great: the banks get stuck w/ the loans and have no incentive to refinance.  

              As noted above, if the loan is performing, then the bank won't refinance.  If the loan isn't performing, they'll foreclose.  That's what they've been doing all along, rather than refinancing troubled loans.

              •  The answer my friend is blowing in the wind (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mightymouse, Mr Robert, wsexson

                1) Why won't a bank do a modification on a performing loan? They do it all the time -- they look at the risk going forward.

                2) The banks are foreclosing as servicers on behalf of Fannie/Freddie. They probably make money on this. They have zero risk on the default

                3) The GOOPERs won't allow Fannie/Freddie to do massive modifications but they have no control over the banks.

                •  REALLY trying to understand this. (0+ / 0-)

                  Are you saying that the banks WILL do loan modifications if they bear the loss if the house is foreclosed on?

                  So Fannie and Freddie own most foreclosed on homes?

                  Sorry if I am slow--Dkos is providing my education in finance. :)

                  "I don't want to blame anyone. I just want to know how lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs" --Informed citizen at Congressional town hall

                  by Time Waits for no Woman on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 10:26:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  The re-assignment is a threat. (5+ / 0-)

            If the loan was improperly done, Fannie can make the bank take it back.

            The loans were improperly done.

            So the plan is to cut a deal: Fannie will keep the bad loan and in return the bank will sweeten the terms.

            This is a bad deal. Fannie should put the loan back to the bank, which will hurt the bank. It is important to hurt the bank, otherwise the bank (or other banks) will do the same crap in the future.

          •  I want to know why it stops at people current (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson

            on their notes.  What about the millions and millions who are behind on payments but still trying to pay or making an effort of some kind?  Why can't they be included?  My sister is in that kind of need.  Her husband has lost his job but she still is employed but their income has been cut in half.  They are behind but paying a note as they save up for it.  So they are not technically in foreclosure......so no one will help them unless they risk losing it on a gamble that they stop paying all together and hope they are approved for help when it's actively being taken away.   (No guarantee on that help, mind you)  Or, they can't continue paying a little at a time and no one will ever help them because they are behind and underwater.    

            •  the answer is something out a Heller novel (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mr Robert, wsexson

              If a homeowner defaults, Fannie/Freddie are responsible for making good any loss (interest plus principal).  So investors have no risk now if the homeowner defaults and they actually benefit from the interest payment. So why lower the rate if the homeowner is going to default. Let him default now and get their money out at a higher rate.

  •  This is heartening news. I hope he just starts (24+ / 0-)

    ramroding every possible thing he can past this do-nothing, hostile Congress.  If he can find a way to tag-team with OWS in waking up America to their political and financial oppressors, well, it would go a long way to make me feel better about where our President stands.

    "We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." Justice Louis Brandeis

    by livjack on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:34:15 AM PDT

  •  "Just let the foreclosure process run its course (45+ / 0-)

    and bottom out"?  Get as many people out of their homes as possible so investors can buy them for below market value, rent them at over-priced rates and the sell them for a profit.  Sounds like advice from someone who buys companies, guts them, fires their workers and profits heavily from them.

  •  Symbolic gestures by and large (10+ / 0-)

    Maddening that he can't do anything with this Congress.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:37:51 AM PDT

  •  Romney: Damn it he is running for Office why does (7+ / 0-)

    he want to help poor people?

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:45:41 AM PDT

  •  an end run around GOP economic terrorists- yes! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, hooper, TomP, Matt Z

    Republicans have the 1% vote locked up.

    by MartyM on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:50:42 AM PDT

  •  He's running a risk, taking ownership of failure (9+ / 0-)

    He runs the risk of taking ownership of an economy that is failing and that the Republicans are holding him responsible for.  But he can't run on his abysmal economic record, so he really has no choice.

    He absolutely can't let the Republicans turn the election into a referendum on Obama's policies, so Obama must take the risk and make the election a matchup between Dem policies and Repug policies.  It's never easy trying to explain policies to the apathetic, uninformed independent voters that decide elections, but Obama has nothing else to run on.

  •  Executive _what_ now? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, hooper, divineorder, Mr Robert

    Who knew that the President could unilaterally do things other than commit the US to war and assassinate American citizens?

    [/snark]

    seriously, though, this is potentially good news...especially politically for Obama, since just blaming Congress (however fairly) for a stalled economy is not going to win him reelection.

    The devil, however, is in the details.  Presidential actions had better be aimed at the 99%.  If the White House targets the 1% and hopes for trickle down, this might even damage the President politically.

    Tunis...Cairo...Tripoli...Wall Street

    by GreenSooner on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:53:29 AM PDT

  •  He should do everything he can (13+ / 0-)

    There's little sense in waiting on congress.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:03:07 AM PDT

  •  a far cry from win the future (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle, Actbriniel, mightymouse

    WCW is much more apropos when considering the opposition...

    I can't believe it took this long, but better late than never...just hope it isn't too late...

    and if he wins I hope he fires the whole lot of jokers who recommended acting Republican even if he made the call on hiring...they just need to go away starting with Geithner and Daley...

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:14:34 AM PDT

  •  I can't help but wonder (5+ / 0-)

    whether whatever he plans to do with respect to student loan repayment will have any bearing on those of us who've consolidated our loans with private lenders.

    And if the Blue Sky Mining Company won't come to my rescue, if the sugar refining company won't save me, who's gonna save me?

    by Geenius at Wrok on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:19:42 AM PDT

  •  This is good. (8+ / 0-)

    This has to go on thru the election.   Eventually, more folks will wake up to which side the Rs are on.

    More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

    by TomP on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:22:44 AM PDT

    •  People knew (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maxomai, mightymouse

      People knew what side the Republicans were on in 2006 and 2008. The only ones who didn't get the message of those elections were the Democrats.  

      Regardless, Obama doing the right things he was elected to do is never a bad thing.  

      I also thank the one who rearranged deck chairs on the Titanic so those on board ship could get a better view of the iceberg.

      by NyteByrd1954 on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:38:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Romney: Free market takes care of underwater homes (11+ / 0-)

    ... but WE TAXPAYERS should take care of underwater banks?

    republican_Monopoly-Card_Bank-DeRegulation_Collect-Money

    Never let the people with all the money & the people with all the guns be the same people. ~ P.J. O'Rourke

    by dmhlt 66 on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:28:13 AM PDT

  •  Monday - CA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero

    There's a good shot I might be the president of the United State. If I do, I will benefit from your thoughts. - Mitt Romney, Iowa

    by anyname on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:34:25 AM PDT

  •  This is good news. Homeowners will have hundreds (7+ / 0-)

    more each month that otherwise would go to the banks. That is good for the economy and jobs.

  •  Newsflash! The president has executive power (5+ / 0-)

    and does more than sign bills coming out of congress!  This is exactly why people like me have been so critical of Obama as he blames Congress for his inaction or misdirected action on so many issues. Executive actions are something he could have spent the last 3 years enacting.  

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:35:31 AM PDT

    •  I think he was trying that bi-partisan thing first (0+ / 0-)

      "We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." Justice Louis Brandeis

      by livjack on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:06:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Except of course (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      evergreen2

      That President Obama doesn't work that way.  He's told us all along that he wants and will fight for bi-partisan legislation.  

      That is who he is to a core whether we like it or not.

      Sarah Palin - reality TV is the closest she's ever going to get to reality.

      by jackandjill on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:25:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This amazing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, snoopydawg, mightymouse

    This is amazing!!!

    The "fierce urgency of now" has taken hold over Obama after 2+ years of joblessness, hopelessness, sad poll numbers, excuse making as to Obama not being a dictator, and campaign season about to open.  

    Correction:  It is not amazing.  It is a miracle, I tell you.  A genuine miracle.  

    I also thank the one who rearranged deck chairs on the Titanic so those on board ship could get a better view of the iceberg.

    by NyteByrd1954 on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:37:10 AM PDT

  •  This is good, yes, BUT (7+ / 0-)

    One more instance where Obama, after spending MUCH too long trying to get cooperation from Republicans, FINALLY finds out what he can do by executive order.  Maybe if he replaces his economic team, these things won't take so long.

    All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:40:07 AM PDT

  •  You're the best Jed. (6+ / 0-)

    Thanks for reporting this.

  •  Rick Perry's request for aid (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure that Rick Perry is totally against the aid for Texas firefighters that he requested. If President Obama grants his request for aid, he will probably seceed from the Union.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by shoeless on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:45:28 AM PDT

  •  title edit suggestion (6+ / 0-)

    'We can't wait': Obama to use executive authority to boost economy as Republicans dither on jobs, sends GOP a thank you note.

    ; P

    My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

    by Cedwyn on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:45:53 AM PDT

  •  My cousin has been foreclosed upon. (9+ / 0-)

    She's out of work. She's a college teacher specializing in remedial English for freshmen who graduated from high school without the skills to continue in college.
    There's an enormous demand for her skills, but she's out of work, here in Texas.
    I've been working til 10, 11, midnight every night for the last few weeks getting a fixer-upper ready for her to move into.
    It will actually be a much nicer place, in the midst of a pecan orchard, but...
    Romney has no soul whatsoever.

    •  WOW...... (6+ / 0-)
      She's out of work. She's a college teacher specializing in remedial English for freshmen who graduated from high school without the skills to continue in college.

      Boy....doesn't THAT say a lot about our public education system?  And, the repubs want to actually take teachers away from that system.  

      Jeeebus, y'all !!!

      - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

      by r2did2 on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:58:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, they are making progress--especially at (4+ / 0-)

        the state level.  Hopefully, things can be righted (no pun intended) in 2012 as more people have learned of their true agenda to dismantle education as we know it.  

        They now have local level operatives making their way onto school boards and boards of trustees who adhere to tea party principles like: "Transform [public education] through 'managed dismantlement,' not reform."

        They have to be stopped.

        "We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." Justice Louis Brandeis

        by livjack on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:14:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why are high school graduates in need of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, David54

        remedial English?

        •  Because of NCLB mainly (6+ / 0-)

          And some due to Learning Disabilities, some to MLL issues. But mainly due to NCLB. It doesn't promote the kind of critical thinking in writing needed for college level writers. I have also taught "remedial" English at the University Level. Most Profs have to at a State college, and many, many adjuncts, and pretty much all graduate students on a stipend. It's a huge course population. And both my husband and I have taught this extensively.

          The MLL/ELL students are usually fine and scrape by with a bit of focused language instruction. Those with learning disabilities have a tougher time, especially with so many with ADHD. But the real killer is the kids who come in from High School and say they haven't written an English essay in four years... and if you ask them what they did do, they say they've read books and taken multiple choice tests about them.

          That does nothing for College level writers at all and is useless. So we work mainly on their Critical Thinking abilities, and also learning how to read better, since many read just text books; text books are written in this "See Dick Run" way that makes students unable to handle college-level reading.  

          It's definitely NCLB.

          "This movement is not about the destruction of law, it is about the construction of law." - Julian Assange

          by mahakali overdrive on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:40:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think this is dead on (3+ / 0-)
            But the real killer is the kids who come in from High School and say they haven't written an English essay in four years... and if you ask them what they did do, they say they've read books and taken multiple choice tests about them.

            No Child Left Behind makes teachers change the way they teach.  I had 4 children in public schools before NCLB and now have 7 grands in public schools.  If it weren't for my wife and I (we're both college educated), our grand kids wouldn't even know how to put together a sentence, let alone know proper grammar.  

            You're dead on.

            - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

            by r2did2 on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:02:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for helping your kids out (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              David54

              You did the right thing there. You don't even want to know the things that I've heard from my students. It's shameful. You cannot teach writing and reading to a test.

              Good for you and your wife and godspeed to your seven grandkids! That's an accomplishment to be proud of. :)

              "This movement is not about the destruction of law, it is about the construction of law." - Julian Assange

              by mahakali overdrive on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:31:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Great. But He Should Say (6+ / 0-)

    "Can't wait for REPUBLICANS to act" not can't wait for lawmakers or congress to act. Enough with the grouping of both parties together. He absolutely needs to pin it specifically on the Republics.

  •  I'm particularly curious on this one (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    evergreen2
    And Wednesday in Denver, the official said, Mr. Obama will announce policy changes to ease college graduates’ repayment of federal loans, seeking to alleviate the financial concerns of students considering college at a time when states are raising.

    What, exactly, is that saying?  Are the loans going to be forgiven?  Are future loans going to be just pay-outs and not loans at all?

    Anyone know what this is?  If any of the readers/posters here have had children strapped with student loans, they see why I'm questioning this particular part of what Obama is doing here.  

    - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

    by r2did2 on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:50:11 AM PDT

  •  How nice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snoopydawg, Punditus Maximus

    This will only make voters wonder, "What's he been waiting for, if he had this power all along?"

  •  Bring The Ruckus! Obama 2012 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam AZ, Imhotepsings, Matt Z

    is in a great position to be able to make the case, "We Can't Wait".  PBO's re-election team is BOSS!!!

  •  way to go Mr. President (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam AZ, Matt Z

    but it just won't be enough to make a big difference. The jobs act however would make a difference.

  •  Student loans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxomai, OldDragon, evergreen2

    What will be the proposal?

    How about lowering the interest rates on existing student loans.  They make no sense in today's environment of low interest rates.  Depending on when a loan was disbursed, one could pay dramatically different rates.  

    For example, a loan disbursed prior to 6/30/06 would currently have a (variable) rate of 3.16% while one disbursed after that date has a rate (fixed) of 6.8% or 7.9%.

    Lower the rates!

  •  The problem... (0+ / 0-)

    ...is aggregate demand.

    You need at least one or two more stimului the size of the 2009 package, perhaps more; you need core inflation about 3% to break the liquidity trap (this helps a bit with underwater home owners, too).  And we're in a situation where there is a big backlog of need for public goods, e.g. roads, railroads, the power grid, technology R&D, etc.  Why not another cash for clunkers, or similar?

  •  The collapse of the housing bubble (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    evergreen2

    was part of the plan from the get-go. They just didn't plan on the price of gas spiking and the economy doing a nosedive, which exploded the bubble.

    The plan was to let foreclosures trickle in, so that prices didn't drop, and they could sell the house again.

  •  Obama needs to do a new Executive Order (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZappoDave, evergreen2

    every week from now until election day.  Each one need to benefit the poor and middle class (or the country as a whole) in some small yet significant way.  It seemed like Clinton was doing this in the run-up to the 1996 election and it really helped him.  Of course, it would also help if the economy started moving a bit faster in the right direction.

  •  Sorry, But I Agree With Mitt Here (0+ / 0-)

    And while President Obama is doing what he can to boost consumer spending and put underwater homeowners on more secure financial grounds

    Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom

    It is the propping up of the housing market for more than a decade now, policies like the National Home Ownerhip Strategy and an economy which is based almost solely upon consumption which has gotten us to where we find ourselves today.

    Trying to keep the balloon inflated is not going to solve the problem, it only kicks the can down the road -- yet again.

    I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

    by superscalar on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:58:25 AM PDT

  •  Uh oh (3+ / 0-)

    Fact: the new program will only help home owners who are current in their mortgage payments.

    Fact: lots of people are in crisis because they are behind in their payments, due to taking ARMs that got jacked up, or due to losing jobs/income.

    Fact: banks were unwilling to work with borrowers at all unless they fell behind in their payments, thus encouraging underwater, financially distressed borrowers to become not current.

    This is not going to go well.

    Looking for a holiday gift? Consider Krampus and other original wood block prints by Liv Rainey-Smith.

    by maxomai on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:58:53 AM PDT

  •  HAMP? (4+ / 0-)

    Hamp. Hamp. Hamp.  Home Affordable Modification Program. Fail.

    Obama runs it 100% without Congressional oversight. It has been run by Geithner in a very bank-friendly way. WTF.

     

    I'm an American Liberal. Blogging in between family, work and activism time.

    by AlphaLiberal on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:02:28 AM PDT

  •  Romney just esplained Disaster Capitalism (5+ / 0-)

    in 50 words or less

    Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy up homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up, and let it turn around and come back up.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:05:10 AM PDT

  •  how come companies are not allowed to fail (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HCKAD

    but it is ok for people to have their lives destroyed?

  •  Encouraging news (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, evergreen2

    Glad he's beginning to realize these steps are a necessary and important tool in working around GOP obstructionism in Congress.  FDR used the powers of his office extensively to help bring an end to the Great Depression.

    Let's hope he uses those executive powers in areas of job creation as well.

    "When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?" Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Betty Pinson on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:28:10 AM PDT

  •  Conservatives are exploiters and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Abelia

    destroyers.  They even have a theory to justify their predilection.  They call it "planned destruction" or "creative destruction." Based on the belief that whatever is destroyed, creative forces will automatically replace, they have determined that all that's necessary for them to create jobs, for example, is to wreck some destruction to "let it turn around and come back up."  
    They believe in magic.  How can that be? Well, there is some basis in fact.  We know from the historical record that what conservatives destroy, progressives build back up.
    Which is why it's time to say "enough is enough." We're tired of that game. Because the only tangible result is that our public assets are transferred into private wealth and those parasites don't even know what to do with it. Except destroy some more.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:42:21 AM PDT

  •  Right on Mr. President!!! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaintC, evergreen2, michelewln, destiny1

    My sister and I were just talking about this the  other day. You do what you can and have to do Mr. President, while reminding the voters of just how unhelpful the other side is being. Right on!!

  •  Mitt's plan, The Great Scam Act IV (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    evergreen2

    What a win-win for the crooks! You have to admire the balls of this guy.

     Act I. Banks and mortgage brokers created  the bubble, luring everyday people into an intentionally overinflated housing market and fraudulently making loans that shouldn't have been approved.

    Act II. they crashed the market and the economy because not only did they act as middle men in this bubble, they then "securitized" the fraudulent loans, turning bubble into giant fucked up morass and inflating the bubble until it burst.

    In Act III, everyday people also got to pay for that, while big banks paid out bonuses.

    Mitt's Act IV is the perfect topper to the Great Scam. Now allow "investors" (maybe some of those banks sitting on money they don't want to loan, maybe some of those bonus-receiving execs) to scoop up houses the scammed victims have managed to hang on to, for pennies on the dollar!

    Has there ever been a more perfect crime?

  •  Very good (0+ / 0-)

    but it isn't enough.  I like Obama well enough and in the context of our current system of government I will vote for him this election, but we must change the system because it no longer serves the function for which it was intended.  

    Our government is obsolete, corrupted and totally unresponsive to the citizens of this country.  One of the things that has led to the total corruption is the fact that we have an 18th century representative system for a 21st century population.  In other words, we don't have enough representatives for the number of people.  

    We must demand a new constitutional convention.  We cannot hope for change from people who have become corrupted in a system that does not allow them to remain uncorrupted.  (Supreme court Citizens United decision).  There is no way to disentangle Wall Street from our current government, and the people are not being represented.

    Begin the call now for a new Constitutional Convention.  Become the change you want to see.  Waiting on politicians, no matter who they are, to do this for us is ludicrous.  they are the problem.  Obama is right about one thing.  WE  CAN'T AFFORD TO WAIT FOR POLITICIANS TO ACT.  

    DEMAND A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION NOW.

  •  UnConstitutional Power Grab (0+ / 0-)

    I can hear the the Repug talking points now: "It's a huge government overreach" "who does he think he is?  Stalin?"

    My response is: You don't like what he's proposing?  Then DO SOMETHING about the ACTUAL problem!  Stop dithering with really, really making it illegal to fund an abortion with federal money and letting companies do whatever the hell they want.  If you love America as much as you claim stop trying to score a small short sighted political victory at the expense of the economic collapse of the country you claim to love!

    I survived Satellite Apocalypse 2011... and all I got was this lousy sig.

    by divedeeper on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:20:38 AM PDT

  •  This is all window dressing (0+ / 0-)

    Underwater loans must be forgiven.  Free up what would have been loan payments to be used in other areas to boos the economy.  In addition, there must be a cap on the interest that can be charged.  I suggest 3%.  Anything more is profiteering.

  •  He could have done this three years ago. (0+ / 0-)

    The lede is massively buried here.

    Obama is COMPLETELY changing his policy toward mortgages, if this is true.  His first priority was drawing out the foreclosure process, but making sure that anyone who was seriously "underwater" lost their house, because they deserve to.

    I suspect this is just PR, because Obama is very personally committed to making sure "bad" homeowners lose their houses.  But if it's not, it's a HUGE policy shift, that Obama could have done AT ANY TIME but chose not to.

    That's the lede.  That Obama could always have done this.  Why didn't he?

    The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

    "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

    by Punditus Maximus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:34:47 AM PDT

  •  I don't get it--if you're current with payments... (0+ / 0-)

    ...why would you be in foreclosure in the first place? Is this just for the benefit of those staring down a big balloon payment coming up, but no bank will refi because the balloon exceeds the property value? Seems like an awfully small subset of those in need.

    •  I think you'd be surprised (0+ / 0-)

      We did all the right things buying a house. 30-yr mortgage. Good neighborhood. Have made all the payments. Never late.

      What's happened though is that the value of the house dropped significantly with the glut and the crisis.

      To the point where what we owe is above what it's worth.

      If we could refinance, we would lower payments by about $150 a month.

      Bank of America will not refinance the house because it is more money than the house is worth.

      I believe many more people than you think are in the same boat.

      •  But you have a 30-year mortgage. (0+ / 0-)

        So you don't absolutely have to refinance, although given where rates are now, I understand why you would want to (so would I). And since you've made all of your payments, you're not in foreclosure. So I guess you're not in that subset that this program (as described) proposes to address--in foreclosure despite having made all payments. So who are these people and how many of them are there?

  •  This is a good thing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    There are millions of people just like me.  We are securely financed.  We can pay our mortgage without struggling.  We have excellent credit.  We are deeply underwater.  

    And we are stuck.  We can't move.  We can't refinance.  Our only way out is to strategically default.

    This isn't a "poor me" comment.  But I sure can tell you that the inability to refinance and cut my mortgage payment probably in half, significantly cuts back on my willingness to spend and invest in the economy.  

    Here's the first things I would do after refinancing.  

    1).  Buy another property to rent
    2).  Buy up some adjacent land to my current property
    3).  Landscaping of that wild adjacent land.

    This will release a lot of pent-up capital and economic activity.  It will solidify and probably goose home values.  I do not pose any real increased risk to the government (hence will cost very very little) to the security of the loan.  As long as those additional guarantees have very high standards of income/credit it won't be a transfer of money to the lender.  In fact, it will likely decrease the amount of money they make by reducing interest they receive.

  •  He's also going to announce one per week (0+ / 0-)

    In one of the articles I read last night, the administration is going to announce at least one initiative per week through the end of the year. Perhaps if the public gets behind this, we can pressure the "do nothing" Republicans and blue dogs in Congress to help us.

  •  What's The Name of Obama's Paving Company? (0+ / 0-)

    It seems to me that the political weapon the President is choosing to wield is a sword with 2 very nasty cutting edges.

    In service of concision, I'll simply note that acting unilaterally, boldly announcing the exercise of executive authority to create jobs at a number that's fractionally related to the actual state of the need risks putting the national spot-light on an action/outcome scenario that is ripe for exploitation by the right.

    More jobs is a good thing.  Yet, the cultural sentiment driving the political tsunami known as the "Occupy" movement is in large part informed by a sizable mismatch between Obama's promises of Hope & Change and the lived experience of those on the receiving end of that messaging.  How much political capital is the President going to risk to deliver a million or so jobs when - as of this writing - there are 26,000,000 Americans who are un- or under-employed?

    IMHO, a concurrent "spend" from the PolCap account in service of highly publicized DoJ, FBI, SEC investigations into "Wall St" malfeasance that openly embraces the hard work of most of the 50 states' AGs would be a good back-stop to bolster the President's unitary jobs creation decrees.  Without the latter of these two, being the act of establishing and enforcing accountability on Wall St, the former will be a political poison pill.

  •  High time. Better late than never after squanderin (0+ / 0-)

    -g valuable time hung up with bipartisanshit. If I remember history right, FDR created WPA thru an executive order.  

    "The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out”. - George Carlin

    by Funkygal on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:00:05 PM PDT

  •  this is not accurate (0+ / 0-)

    the same story is also being reported over at TPM, and it is a misleading headline and an inaccurate story.
    TPM's reporting is off-base. The White House (WH) hasn't done anything here, except say that they agree that a provision that was present in the original American Jobs Act should be passed, and a provision that will help determine how subsidies and cost-sharing reductions for the healthcare exchanges will be restructured. With regard to the 3% withholding on vendors, the WH statement says: "The Administration would be willing to work with the Congress to identify acceptable offsets for the budgetary costs associated with the repeal, which could include but are not limited to ones that are in the President’s detailed blueprint outlined to the Congress on September 19, 2011." It's worth noting that the administration is hasn't said that it will accept ANY Republican proposal, and is using the blueprint outlined in the AJA as the blueprint. http://www.whitehouse.gov/.... With regard to the modification of income calculation for eligibility for certain healthcare programs, the WH stated: " Beginning in 2014, this income definition will be used to determine financial eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions available through Affordable Insurance Exchanges. The Administration looks forward to working with the House to ensure the bill achieves the intended result." Here it's important to note that this move would further clarify eligibility for Medicaid under the ACA. If someone does not qualify for Medicaid ( income <133% of the federal poverty level) under the ACA, they will still qualify for subsidies from 133% to 400% of the federal poverty level to obtain insurance via the Exchange. The change does not result in a loss of care, as implied by the article. That said, on the overarching maneuvering going on here, I think TPM is being a bit too hyperbolic. Nothing has been agreed to. Additionally, it's not impossible for the WH to say that it supports the passage of these items, but only on a conditional basis, which is essentially what they've done. For the first one, the WH wants "acceptable offsets" as a condition of support. For the second one, the change needs to achieve the "intended result" (i.e., no reduction in care) as a condition of support. This is hardly a Republican "victory."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site