The crash can be traced back to the collapsing housing market. It make sense to try to shore up housing. If people can stay in their homes, avoid foreclosure, or simply get out of their subprime loans into more favorable terms, the now-valueless (or value unknown) mortgage back securities can start regaining some of their value.
I heard McCain’s plan discussed on McLaughlin Group. It reminded me of Patrick’s proposal to do something similar in Massachusetts. One key difference is that at the federal level there is $700B that is available to use. At the state level, I think Patrick was looking at leveraging another agency (for a loan? or using a portion of interest earned?) for funding.
McCain’s plan is similar to one that David described as “an interesting, and much more sophisticated, approach to keeping people in their homes.
What is Obama’s plan? I only find a subsection of his economic plan devoted to foreclosure, and the material seems to have been written before recent events.
I imagine that it’s politically prudent to stay silent when one is riding an issue the way Obama is the current fiscal crisis. At this point, I don’t think announcing a plan would sway many voters. As Obama supporters, don’t you want to know what he would do if elected and able to appoint a new Sec. of Treasury? Or are you willing to gamble that this isn’t going to be Obama’s equivalent of Patrick’s casino proposal?
that Bruce Marks (the author of the op-ed I discussed in the post to which you linked) was advocating the enormous giveaway to lenders that McCain’s plan represents. That, perhaps, is part of why nobody other than the McCain campaign thinks McCain’s plan is a good idea. And I mean nobody — not the left, not the right, not the middle. Do you see anyone outside the campaign even giving it the time of day? I didn’t think so.
I don’t quote someone unless it’s what they actually said. You didn’t call the Mark’s proposal “interesting.”
<
p>Look at the third comment, titled Another very interesting view. It’s a response you made to your own post. In it you linked to an open letter to congress from John Hussman, Ph.D.
<
p>Hussman gives good reason why the government shouldn’t just buy equity but should instead institute new legislation which would allow the purchase of a senior claim. Under the terms of the claim, the taxpayers would have some protection and the banks would be incentivized to both payback the government and privatize the loan.
<
p>But it’s Hussman’s last point — number five — that you quote in your comment and that most resembles McCain’s plan. Both call for directly lowering the payments of homeowners.
<
p>Did you read McCain’s proposal? It includes no “giveaway to lenders” implied or explicit.
<
p>I’ll reiterate. I heard this plan discussed on McLaughlin group. Is that show now part of the McCain campaign? Zuckerman and McLaughlin spoke in favor. Buchanan, Clift and Bernard in opposition.
<
p>I agree McCain’s plan is getting short attention in the MSM. Why is that? If Obama had a plan — any plan — that included new mortgages that would be FHA-guaranteed fixed-rate mortgages at terms manageable for the homeowner I think you’d have to agree that we’d be hearing stories about it on the major networks.
<
p>I think we’d also see many more people realizing “that there are much, much better ideas out there that both spend taxpayer money far more wisely and also get at the root of the problem much more effectively.”
<
p>