Full text of Treasury’s proposal

September 21st, 2008 9:05 am by Paulson Seeks Blank Check for Treasury; Unease Grows : HousingWire

[...] Indeed, Paulson is reaching for unchecked power here — the proposal sent to Congress on Saturday stipulates that “decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” Read the full text of the proposal. [...]

September 22nd, 2008 12:23 pm by What Recent Changes In The Financial Markets Mean To You: Lock. Now. : Arizona Mortgage Team :: Arizona. Mortgage. Experts.

[...] Congress is planning on giving Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a line of credit that he can use to purchase up to 700 Billion of “bad mortgage debt” at any one time.  (Note the part in section 6 of the Treasury’s proposal where it says that the maximum amount is 700 Billion at any one time — meaning it is possible to buy and sell, buy and sell TRILLIONS if Hank Paulson decides to”) [...]

September 24th, 2008 6:49 am by Bruce Mattingly

Assuming Paulson is correct on the time, need, and amount of this “package”, why is there no discussion on diverting funds from existing projects to offset some of the initial outlay? Can renovations and expansions be put on hold for the requested two year window? Surely we can come up with a better plan than spend now pay later. After all, isn’t that how we got here?

September 26th, 2008 3:01 pm by John Doe

Everyone above has said it all. Here is a new one. Take over and control these companies. Foreclosed homes give back to the original owners and give a refinance at a low low rate and at a fair value price [not the escalated inflation values] and set up a program to pay the mortgage payment in lieu of giving money to Paulson who does not know what he is doing. They project financial statements 5 years in advance. They knew this was coming. If you go in and read the Federal Reserve meeting notes, this same thing was discussed in the 90s. This is just one more fat to the fire. Are any of us safe from financial ruin. As Americans we need to pull together and fight the BS and the politics. We need experience. Say what you want about McCain and Obama, neither was my choice. And if I wanted Biden I would have voted for him when he was running.
Either way, the government was responsible for this financial downfall now they are trying to manipulate the system to cover it up. Prosecute all of the people responsible, that includes Hank Paulson!

September 27th, 2008 4:19 pm by Amy

Just something I was thinking about.

If the corporations that funded our home mortgages need money, so desperately they need government assistance, and if people are losing value in their home or losing their homes, due to the poor economy and it is mainly mortgage related. How about an incentive, the people that do have a some money left pay off part of their loan for additional credit. For instance, if you owe 500,000 on your home and you have some savings, you could pay 20,000 to your lender and they would reduce your loan 40,000, so your new loan balance is 460,000 and the lender would recalculate the loan at the same terms as agreed, this should lower the borrower’s payments. By doing this, the company would raise money, benefit their customers and gain some financial stability. Now the homeowners that have lost equity could have a chance of gaining some of it back thus reducing the urge to walk away from their home. As a result less money would be required for the bailout if any. As a country we could pull together and do something for ourselves, everyone that contributes, directly benefits, which means our great grandchildren will not be paying for our debts. If I contribute to save the mortgage company I want to directly benefit and the mortgage company would be taking a loss however have a better chance of improving their financial standing.

Benefits:
Reduce the American’s debt
No additional foreclosures
Banks will have funds available for others to borrow
Less money will be needed for the bailout if any
American’s will have less obligation therefore may create a stimulus in the economy

People have already taken a loss as it relates to our investments and our homes. The banks have taken losses as it relates to owning a bunch of homes they don’t want. I’ve heard mortgage companies don’t want to negotiate with customers that are current, well I think that’s greedy when we are in a time of financial crisis and they need our help. What do you think? Why won’t this work?

September 28th, 2008 8:15 am by Dolores

Check out Goldman Sachs on Wikipedia and you will find that Paulson was a former CEO of that company and is only looking out for his stock. Also, who is going to be appointed administrator of this plan? You can bet all the republicans are salivating over this. A cap on CEO salaries should be part of the terms.

October 2nd, 2008 8:51 am by allis

Look, anybody who blames the republican party or bush for this is ignorant of the facts. This problem arose from fannie mae and freddie mac buying too many subprime and alt-a loans. Those loans were intended to allow people who otherwise could not afford a house, to buy one. Which in theory seemed like a nice thing to do, but what it really did was increase real estate values by increasing demand with buyers who had no real reason to be in the market, which in turn made housing less affordable for everybody, causing an increase in the number of non conforming loans, which ultimately led to fannie and freddie having to buy more bad loans. it’s a vicious cycle.

many republicans including bush tried to get legislation passed that would regulate fannie and freddie, not allowing them to have a portfolio dominated by subprimes and alt-a’s. similar legislation in 2003, 2005, 2007. all republicans(in committee) for, and all democrats against, so it never made it out of committee.

ultimately both parties are to blame for trying in a way reminiscent of our cold war buddies to redistribute wealth. not something this country was founded on.