Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Senate Overwhelmingly Votes For Bailout

I expect this kind of crap from Dems...

A massive foreclosure rescue bill cleared a key Senate test Tuesday by an overwhelming margin, with Democrats and Republicans both eager to claim election-year credit for helping hard-pressed homeowners.

The mortgage aid plan would let the Federal Housing Administration back $300 billion in new, cheaper home loans for an estimated 400,000 distressed borrowers who otherwise would be considered too financially risky to qualify for government-insured, fixed-rate loans.

An 83-9 vote put the plan on track for Senate passage as early as Wednesday, but President Bush is threatening a veto, and Democrats are fighting each other over key details. Those challenges will probably delay any final deal until mid-July.

...and have come to expect it from Republicans.  It is votes like this that will cause the Republican Party to continue to lose seats and be in the minority for the foreseeable future.  They are voting to appeal to the Democrat base who will never vote for them.  Perhaps if they would vote in line with the GOP base, they might recover.

(10) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2109 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

  1. Damn, I knew I shouldn’t have taken the responsible route when I closed on my house 4 years ago and took the higher rate 30 year fixed loan.  Stupid me, I should have known the government would watch over me.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2008 at 2207 hrs


  2. They are voting to appeal to the Democrat base who will never vote for them.

    You get partial credit.

    Both the Dems and the Pubbies ALSO voted the interests of their campaign contributors:  the banks.

    This bill will remove the crap from bank portfolios and stick it to the taxpayers, disguised as FHA loans.

    Posted by dad29 on June 25, 2008 at 0822 hrs


  3. Congressional leaders also are divided on how high to place loan limits that apply to government mortgage insurance and financing. The Senate bill sets those limits at $625,000 while a House-passed version puts them at $730,000

    If you live in a house of that value and you need government mortgage insurance and financing you ought to be damn ashamed of yourself. 

    What a bullshit entitlement.

    Once again the people who are responsible and do the right things are going to be saddled with the burden of paying for people who live outside their means. 

    While I’ve been sitting on two houses because my new construction finished and my old house never sold (because my neighborhood was spotted with forclosures that were selling 30 grand below the market) I continue to make my payments on an empty house.

    Great job congress.  This is the best you could come up with?  You pandering mother f’ers.  How about some reprecussions for the losers that have chosen to live outside their means?  How about some teeth to this “bailout” that would require those people who decide that after living outside of their means they need government help to have to pay a recapture tax on equity gained when they sell their house?

    If the government is going to bail these losers out they ought not be taking equity away from their home at the expense of the taxpayer.  This would keep people who don’t “have” to refi with a government loan from doing so just to be freeloaders.

    And for the banks…  Didn’t we learn in high school economics that higher risk loans have higher interest because of that risk?  So now they’ve made these high interest high risk loans and now they want help from joe-taxpayer? Shameful…

    and members of the Congressional Black Caucus call it unacceptable, arguing it doesn’t do enough to address the needs of black Americans.

    What a bunch of racists

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 0923 hrs


  4. This is such horse shit.  This will screw over so many people.  The market for affordable real estate was about to become much better, and now it won’t.  Why should my tax dollars go go to making it more expensive for me to by a house (I rent now)?

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on June 25, 2008 at 1119 hrs


  5. Why should my tax dollars go go to making it more expensive for me to by a house (I rent now)?

    I’ll make you a hell of a deal on a great fully remodeled house in West Allis!  smile

    I’ll even finance you

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1130 hrs


  6. What a bullshit entitlement.

    I was watching the local news, and they had one of the Lake Delton homeowners on there.  They were saying that he is ineligible for FEMA money because it’s a vacation home, or not his primary home.  The guy seemed to be almost in tears.  He then said that he was having his lawyer look into options to force the government to give him that money.  We live in a bullshit entitlement society where a guy with a $500,000 vacation home feels the need to get $28,000 from the government.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1208 hrs


  7. Here’s a great example…

    http://www.channel3000.com/news/16647947/detail.html

    FEMA said this is the way lawmakers have outlined aid for flood victims.

    But the Tomasellos aren’t taking the news lightly.

    “Well, the state needs to change their law, because that’s a bunch of bull. I have structural damage on my home. So, OK, I’ll just stop paying my taxes then, and say, ‘OK, take it,’” Sam Tomasello said.

    Nice attitude.  If this guy stops paying his taxes, I hope he ends up in jail.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 1211 hrs


  8. Yeah, no kidding.  The poor FIB from Chicago wants government money for his vacation home.  Maybe El Cheapo should’ve ponied up for flood insurance.

    Also, I hate how these stories include phrases like “secondary homeowners learned they weren’t covered…” as though they need someone to tell them that.  Perhaps those secondary homeowners could get off their collective asses and do a little homework themselves.

    If someone sent me Sam Tomasello’s address, I’d send him a snorkel.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 25, 2008 at 1742 hrs


  9. Maybe El Cheapo should’ve ponied up for flood insurance.

    They didn’t have the option of buying flood insurance.  There was a bunch of typical government bullshit (intergovernmental dispute over high-water mark) that prevented all the people on that lake from purchasing flood insurance.

    In a way I feel like its ‘buyer beware’ when it comes to this.  I mean if you KNOW you don’t have flood insurance, you buy and live at your own risk.  Having said that if I were these guys I would SERIOUSLY be launching lawsuits agains their homeowners insurance.  Their homes were not flooded, they were destroyed by erosion.  Unless their policy specifically excluded sink-holes and other similar ‘acts of god’ i’d be all over that. 

    Lastly… Why do I get the feeling if these homeowners DID have flood insurance that their insurance company or fema or whomever administers that program would be claiming their homes were not destroyed by flood but erosion and be putting it back on their homeowners policy.

    Shitty situation. I do feel bad for the homeowners.  EVEN if it is there second home. (damn you guys can play the money envy game really hard) I don’t feel like taxpayers should be footing the bill, but I still feel bad for them.

    They may have been willing to accept the risk of living without flood insurance figuring they could deal with the risk of having flooded basements, or homes, or whatever.  But having your entire property swept away.  Who would have known that was the risk they were living with.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2008 at 2250 hrs


  10. $300 billion just to buy 400,000 votes? I’ll sell my vote this year for $750,000 too. Oh but I don’t get to because I’m one of the responsible people.

    The Senators who voted for this can go fuck themselves.

    Bush, please veto this!

    Posted by Matt on June 26, 2008 at 1009 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.