Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Vote 'Em Out


The bailout madness continues unabated, with this latest floater out from the FDIC and Treasury. It seems picking winners among banks wasn't enough. They now want to pick winners among house buyers as well:

Government May Guarantee 3 Million Mortgages

Officials with the Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. are nearing agreement on a plan under which the government would guarantee the mortgages of millions of homeowners now struggling to avoid foreclosure.

According to three sources familiar with the discussions, the plan would cover up to three million homeowners. It would cost between $40 billion and $50 billion and cover as much as $600 billion in mortgage loans.

Under the program being discussed, the lender would agree to reduce borrowers' monthly payments based on their ability to pay. The reductions could be achieved by lowering the interest rate, slashing the amount owed or extending the repayment period.

These reconfigured loans would help homeowners avert foreclosure.

In exchange, financial institutions that agree to participate in the program would receive a government guarantee for a portion of any losses occurring if borrowers default on the reconfigured loan.
We're now way passed the point where we should expect rational policy out of the current batch of cowards and thieves that run our government. That means it's time give a new bunch of cowards and thieves a chance to act in the interests of responsible citizens. If they fail: wash, rinse, repeat until some decent ones turn up.

I say we start by voting against any incumbent that voted for the misguided $700,000,000,000 Wall Street bank and bonus pool bailout, and go from there. In the Sacramento region, that means voting for Bill Durston (D) instead of Dan Lungren (R) in the Third District, and voting for Paul A. Smith (R) instead of Doris Matsui (D) in the Fifth District. For areas with no incumbent, I would look at the candidate's statements. For example, in the Fourth District election, Tom McClintock said he would have voted against the bailout, while Charlie Brown said the package was "flawed, but still the right move."

If you want to know how all Congressmen voted on the bailout, OpenCongress.org has a list. There's also some good information at Stop The Housing Bailout and Supported The Bailout.

It's time to take the fight to them! Vote 'Em Out!

23 comments :

Tom Stone said...

It looks like cindy sheehan (opposed Bailout) has a chance against Pelosi.Lynne Woolsey and Mike Thompson voted for it,and lost my support forever.Thompson's opponent is a tasteless jerk who opposed the bailout,and he will get my vote.If you can afford it,send sheehan a few bucks.Pelosi should be retired,NOW.

Max said...

I heard that about Sheehan as well, but I doubt she'll win. But boy, if Pelosi lost, that would be most amazing outcome.

Couldn't happen to a better lady.

Darth Toll said...

Oddly, maligned congressman Doolittle voted against the $700B fraud package - twice! Guess he had nothing to lose by doing the right thing, eh? Personally, I'm going with Chuck Baldwin for President as both leading candidates are total bankster sellouts and won't be materially different from the chimp. This is purely on principle and I would have written Ron Paul in, but he endorsed the Constitutional Party candidate and they are largely similar on the big issues.

http://www.baldwin08.com/

McClintock is a solid choice and gets my vote. Way better than Charlie Brown, imho.

http://www.tommcclintock.com/

GWB has wrecked the Republican party, and possibly destroyed it permanently. Good riddance to that merry band of thieves and looting criminals. And those thinking the Demoncats will do better should study the voting record carefully and you will realize there is no substantial difference. Remember that Greenscam and the bankster elite laid a lot of the groundwork for the current disaster during the Clinton years. Sold to you, my friends.

There is really only one good choice, and that is to vote for those that TRULY represent YOU, and not as some hedge or a lesser-of-two-evils approach. That kind of vote is the only wasted vote, especially in California where Obama is a huge favorite. Vote only for individuals, not parties, and vote for your conscience. /soapbox

Darth Toll said...

BTW, do you guys know who Obama's pick is for Treasury Secretary? None other than notarious bankster-gangster Jamie Dimon of JPM fame, who engineered the biggest con-job of all time with the WAMU take-under looting operation!

http://wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/winter/?p=1933

This should tell you all you need to know about Obama and which side his bread is buttered on.

Mike said...

Excellent Idea. Vote them all out!!

Although I am a registered Republican Dan Lundgren lost my vote forever when he voted for the $700B bailout. Will be voting for his opponent for sure.

Unfortunately, regardless of who you vote for these days, results seems to be same though.

Anonymous said...

it appears this site has become less and less about real estate, and more and more about your politcal slant....

Anonymous said...

Yes, this blog has turned into a big steamy pile of dog poo.

Max said...

Yes, this blog has turned into a big steamy pile of dog poo.

That's what's so great about America. You don't have to read things you don't like. You're free to start your own blog. You're free to say what you want.

I still publish my real estate stats, but there's a lot of dead time between data pulls. I suggest you visit once a week for data, or not at all.

Patient Renter said...

From what I've learned about Tom McClintock, I'd definately give him my support as well (and have already). He's certainly not perfect, but he'd be at least one more voice in opposition to all of this sillyness. This opinion is based on the financial/economic policy aspects of the candidates.

Jamie Dimon

You have got to be kidding me! I thought Obama was all about "change"? Maybe by change, he meant simply changing one wall street insider for another.

it appears this site has become less and less about real estate, and more and more about your politcal slant....

You'd have to be living in a box to not see how connected real estate has become to politics. The current financial crisis, which has become very politicized, was caused by the housing bubble collapse. Although it's not directly on topic, I think discussing all aspects of this connection is fair game.

Deflationary Jane said...

**sighs** I'm still registered in CA. Thompson voted yes the second time? I thought he voted no. Crud.

Boxer lost my vote too. I've written her several times in the past 2 months to express my disgust. Feinstien? don't even get me started.

If I had my way, I'd be able to vote for Bernie Saunders. I'd love to steal him from vermont and let him shake this state up.

Anonymous said...

Max - Can you put up a poll on how the readers of your blog will be voting in the presidential race? I think it would be very interesting to see everyone's opinion--and have more than just Obama and McCain represented.

Darth Toll said...

Max, I emailed you and example of a countrywide foreclosure that is not for sale on their site or anywhere else and it's been that way since August. I run across stuff like this all the time.

"dograpp" was my verification word, LOL!

Max said...

"dograpp" was my verification word, LOL!

At least it wasn't dog poop. :)

From the discussions going on on CR and elsewhere, it looks like the shadow inventory veil is about to be lifted. Amazing to watch that CFC total climb exponentially.

The bailout math is truly funny to behold. $60B / 3 million mortgages = $20k per. Laughable considering the average Sacramento buyer in 2005 is now down $100K+. This bailout is only valuable as a political ploy. It won't help anyone, and it'll waste $60 billion.

patient renter said...

$20k per. Laughable considering the average Sacramento buyer in 2005 is now down $100K+

As we've all learned recently, we should not underestimate the stupidity of our policy makers. If 60 billion is out of the question, how about 600 billion? I may come to regret posting this.

Darth Toll said...

"This bailout is only valuable as a political ploy. It won't help anyone, and it'll waste $60 billion."

It might help SOMEONE, but it won't be the homeowner. Depending upon how paranoid you are, you might enjoy the following link. The basic gist is if the banksters can get you to re-finance, you've just traded your non-recourse loan in for something far more sinister, and you will become a debt slave forever. The logic is that a non-recourse loan allows for only seizure of the property in the event of default (good for debtor.) Once you refinance, this turns into a recourse loan (good for banksters) where you can be SUED for the full loss amount and breach of contract. Damages include wage-garnishment, etc. and can't be discharged in a bankruptcy. Very sly, these rats.

http://market-ticker.org/archives/636-Stop-Paying-Your-Mortgage-Today.html

Deflationary Jane said...

Oh yes - the non-recourse to recourse loan move is one of those things that no one thinks about until it's too late.

patient renter said...

Wow Darth, that was an interesting read. I'm not certain that intentional defaults don't cause more harm to taxpayers than good (unfortunately), but people can do whatever they think is best for themselves.

The interesting thing to me is the idea that these workouts will convert loans to recourse. Is that really true? I hadn't read this elsewhere.

patient renter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
patient renter said...

There is an absolutely great article by Frank Shostak describing the simplicity of why government spending/stimulus/bailouts cannot bring about economic prosperity (in the context of examining keynesianism). It is the difference between productive consumption and non-productive consumption:

http://mises.org/story/3169

DrDoom said...

The bailout is the only reason to choose a candidate? Seems oddly singular.

We truely have some extraordinary economic challenges. If I was Treasury Secretary and deeply concerned about bank failures I would probably ask Congress for a huge pile of money to prop up banks so I do not blame Paulson and those that supported it. I also understand that good, intelligent people could have concluded the bailout should not have been supported.

Supporting the bailout may turn out to be incorrect. Letting the banks fail might have been better. Much is unknown. But just because I think it is worth while to try this approach, that the risk and benefit are appropriate does that mean I am part of the a

"batch of cowards and thieves" ?

Max said...

The bailout is the only reason to choose a candidate? Seems oddly singular.

True, but we've reached a crucial crossroads, and true leadership is needed. For those that have abdicated their position through years of cowardly spending money the country does not have, advocated policies that encourage bad economic choices by individuals, and who now propose to spend 25 years of the nations wealth bailing out both, I say get them gone.

Why in the world would you trust those who got us into this mess to get us out? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. Unless we vote out those responsible for this mess, it will never be solved.

Those who voted for the bailout were cowardly for giving their authority over the purse strings away to Paulson. Paulson is a thief for using the bailout money to support corrupt and insolvent institutions.

As voters, it's time to step up. We need a fresh perspective. The incumbents who voted for this thing need to go.

Anonymous said...

"Supporting the bailout may turn out to be incorrect. Letting the banks fail might have been better. Much is unknown. But just because I think it is worth while to try this approach, that the risk and benefit are appropriate does that mean I am part of the a

"batch of cowards and thieves" ?"

Careful Dr. Doom, you are dealing with elitist idealist bubble bloggers.

Max said...

Careful Dr. Doom, you are dealing with elitist idealist bubble bloggers.

Woah! I've never been called an elitist before. I'm going to print that out and frame it.