Refinance rules change for some underwater mortgages

[samclem]

From your link:

"Congress passed similar measures last year, but they are not set to go into effect until July 2014."

I don't know how similar, but if it is like what Obama is proposing, then it is only a timing issue and not a change of debt issue...

Yes, it's the same bad idea just two years earlier. It's not a partisan issue, it goes deeper than that.

 

[clifp]

I find it interesting that there is so much made about this program and the loss of income etc. etc....

What about the FED keeping rates so low That hurts all bondholders... heck, anything where you earn interest.... I think that is where someone can put up a stink...

This program, when all is said and done will probably not even register on the economy...

Hey that isn't nice of you to point out that while I am bitching about the Fed putting fertilizer on one tree which is going to grow bigger and block my sun (bond interest). I am actually in forest of Redwood trees thanks to the Fed and the .25% fed funds rate.

But it is unseemly to complain about forest, eventhough I and the rest of the small saver class is freezing down here, and we having not seen sun a couple of years.

 

[GregLee]

Fundamentally I am still trying to understand why people who's value of their homes has dropped should get some type of special compensation.

I don't see where "should" comes into it. Speaking as a liberal of the secular kind, it's very difficult for me to understand the moralistic tone of so much of this discussion. I want policy makers who help set our economic course to act to increase the general prosperity (but within the law). And I think that's what they're currently trying to do. Of course, any major change in government policy is going to produce winners and losers. Judging whether the current winners deserve their bounty just does not seem to me to be a legitimate policy issue. This is not a theocracy.

 

[samclem]

Speaking as a liberal of the secular kind, it's very difficult for me to understand the moralistic tone of so much of this discussion. I want policy makers who help set our economic course to act to increase the general prosperity (but within the law). . . . This is not a theocracy.

For many folks, it's not about "morality" and "deserving" at all. It's not about politics. It's strictly pragmatic.

Some people see a pie, question not from whence the pie came, and want to divide that pie so the "general prosperity" is greatest. These are "pie assumers" and they usually work from very noble motives.

Others recognize that the pie came from the talents, industriousness, and capital of people, and they want to assure pie will continue to be produced for the benefit of all. These are "pie maximizers." They want to ensure the continued existence of incentives for people to make pie. Their motives may not appear to be as noble, especially to "pie assumers."

Societies organized according to the principles of "pie assumption" all run low on pie.

Encouraging people to put their capital at risk to allow home mortgages to be written encourages pie production. Changing the rules so that their piece of the pie is taken away and given to others does not encourage pie production.

 

[GregLee]

Encouraging people to put their capital at risk to allow home mortgages to be written encourages pie production. Changing the rules so that their piece of the pie is taken away and given to others does not encourage pie production.

I've heard of that theory, and, if it's actually true, I'm fine with it. That is, if keeping much wealth in the hands of the rich actually does increase general prosperity, I'm for it. But if it should turn out that taking a large amount from the rich is best for all of us, then I'll be for that. I'm a pragmatist. It seems to me, though, that a very prominent strain in conservative thought is that the rich have a natural right to keep what they have. This is what I can find no sympathy with. If it's expedient to take it away from them, then let's take it.

 

[samclem]

If it's expedient to take it away from them, then let's take it.

I wish that everyone who believes as you do would speak as you do. It would make things much easier.

 

[GregLee]

I wish that everyone who believes as you do would speak as you do. It would make things much easier.

Shall we take that as meaning that what you said about the rich justifying their wealth by their entrepreneurial activities was just a convenient rationalization that you don't really care about? It's a story you use to pacify your liberal friends.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I'm always confused by posters who (1) admit this and (2) still feel qualified to chip in.

I can understand it for threads like "What did you do today?" or "Tell us about your ___" or polls.

But I'm not certain how a contribution in the absence of reading keeps the thread from becoming a reciprocated diatribe-- or just a roomful of people all talking at once.

I read the whole thread.

And I absolutely adore the term "reciprocated diatribe"

 

[clifp]

I'm a pragmatist... If it's expedient to take it away from them, then let's take it.

I agree the honest is refreshing. I am pragmatist also, the problems with this scheme are two fold. First, those filthy rich billionaires just don't have enough money (I calculated it once AFIAK taking all their money pays for this years deficit) The other problem is they are constantly out of the country, so we need to make sure they'd all be at home, before we revoke their passports and take their money.

 

[GregLee]

I agree the honest is refreshing. I am pragmatist also, the problems with this scheme are two fold. First, those filthy rich billionaires just don't have enough money (I calculated it once AFIAK taking all their money pays for this years deficit) The other problem is they are constantly out of the country, so we need to make sure they'd all be at home, before we revoke their passports and take their money.

So, you argue that it's not expedient. I don't know, maybe you're just being sardonic. But in case not, I want to assure you that I understand that argument. If a program of taxing the rich won't actually work, for whatever reason, then no right thinking person (even if liberal) should support it. I recall from the distant past that some argued Switzerland's extremely progressive tax policy would simply drive all the big money out of the country and so would turn out to be self-destructive. But here we are, many years later, in a world where Switzerland still exists. How could that happen?

 

[REWahoo]

I recall from the distant past that some argued Switzerland's extremely progressive tax policy would simply drive all the big money out of the country and so would turn out to be self-destructive. But here we are, many years later, in a world where Switzerland still exists. How could that happen?

Perhaps it is related to the Swiss being more grammatically correct than those of us who reside in the US?

 

[GregLee]

Perhaps it is related to the Swiss being more grammatically correct than those of us who reside in the US?

This should go in the Grammar and Logic thread.

 

[REWahoo]

This should go in the Grammar and Logic thread.

Why? It isn't a grammatical statement, it's my theory of why the Swiss can stomach high tax rates.

 

[Texas Proud]

I've heard of that theory, and, if it's actually true, I'm fine with it. That is, if keeping much wealth in the hands of the rich actually does increase general prosperity, I'm for it. But if it should turn out that taking a large amount from the rich is best for all of us, then I'll be for that. I'm a pragmatist. It seems to me, though, that a very prominent strain in conservative thought is that the rich have a natural right to keep what they have. This is what I can find no sympathy with. If it's expedient to take it away from them, then let's take it.

WOW.... just wow....

 

[Nords]

I read the whole thread.
And I absolutely adore the term "reciprocated diatribe"

One of the burdens of being a moderator is that you have to read the whole thread!

Credit goes to David Snowball, a professor of communications, for coining that phrase on FundAlarm a number of years ago. When FundAlarm shut down he continued the tradition by moving over to Mutual Fund Observer .