Low Mortgage Interest Rates For Everyone!!!: U.S. May Back Refinance Plan for Mortgages

[patientrenter]

“Let’s go a step further and provide relief to those who need relief the most ”

Yep, I vote for relief for people who need it the most – the renters. We should look up the highest amount of ‘relief’ provided to a single homeowner by this ass-backwards proposal, and then match that amount for every renter out there.

Who should pay for this new renters’ subsidy? Well, I vote for homeowners. Create a new tax on them, to subsidize renters.

All this is totally nonsensical. Many of our economic problems arose from spending too much on housing, with too much financing, at prices that were too high. This proposal simply funnels yet more subsidies to people who engaged in all these behaviors. Whatever you tax, you get less of, and whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=flu]This must suck donkey butt for folks who were responsible savers trying to save up for a home all these years. It would be ironic if these low interests rates were available only to people upside down.[/quote]

Don’t be bitter. Bitterness causes ulcers and activate enzymes that can cause cancer.

But seriously, monetary policy (low interest rates) is trickle down economics. The liquidity benefits mostly the banks, corporations and well-to-do individuals who need it least.

We need other policies to increase cash flow for those who are suffering most.

As sdr said, reducing mortgage interest rates at the bottom end will unleash billions of dollars to help the economy.

If a homeowners had been faithfully paying his mortgage at 7% (can’t refinance for some reason). Why not reduce the rate to 4%?

The banks and corporations got their bailouts… now,let’s help the people who need it most. It’s about helping the economy as a whole, right now.[/quote]

Those billions of dollars were already unleashed since so many people haven’t been paying ANYTHING on their mortgages; some haven’t been paying for years.

I’m just trying to figure out what they are going to do to the current bondholders who have non-callable bonds. Are they going to demand these bondholders take a haircut, even though these bonds are guaranteed to pay a certain rate? How will the compensate these bondholders for the losses they are going to take on the (as yet, unrealized) cap gains?

If they do this, do they have any idea what it will do to private demand for govt-backed or GSE bonds?

IMHO, as a bondholder, I would view this is a type of default.[/quote]

There is a big difference between giving the weakest, most irresponsible and relatively small segment of the population additional discretionary income for a year or two than giving it to the stronger, responsible and larger segment of the population for the long term. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! And one with a very long term lasting impact.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=flu]This must suck donkey butt for folks who were responsible savers trying to save up for a home all these years. It would be ironic if these low interests rates were available only to people upside down.[/quote]

Don’t be bitter. Bitterness causes ulcers and activate enzymes that can cause cancer.

But seriously, monetary policy (low interest rates) is trickle down economics. The liquidity benefits mostly the banks, corporations and well-to-do individuals who need it least.

We need other policies to increase cash flow for those who are suffering most.

As sdr said, reducing mortgage interest rates at the bottom end will unleash billions of dollars to help the economy.

If a homeowners had been faithfully paying his mortgage at 7% (can’t refinance for some reason). Why not reduce the rate to 4%?

The banks and corporations got their bailouts… now,let’s help the people who need it most. It’s about helping the economy as a whole, right now.[/quote]

Those billions of dollars were already unleashed since so many people haven’t been paying ANYTHING on their mortgages; some haven’t been paying for years.

I’m just trying to figure out what they are going to do to the current bondholders who have non-callable bonds. Are they going to demand these bondholders take a haircut, even though these bonds are guaranteed to pay a certain rate? How will the compensate these bondholders for the losses they are going to take on the (as yet, unrealized) cap gains?

If they do this, do they have any idea what it will do to private demand for govt-backed or GSE bonds?

IMHO, as a bondholder, I would view this is a type of default.[/quote]

There is a big difference between giving the weakest, most irresponsible and relatively small segment of the population additional discretionary income for a year or two than giving it to the stronger, responsible and larger segment of the population for the long term. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! And one with a very long term lasting impact.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=flu]This must suck donkey butt for folks who were responsible savers trying to save up for a home all these years. It would be ironic if these low interests rates were available only to people upside down.[/quote]

Don’t be bitter. Bitterness causes ulcers and activate enzymes that can cause cancer.

But seriously, monetary policy (low interest rates) is trickle down economics. The liquidity benefits mostly the banks, corporations and well-to-do individuals who need it least.

We need other policies to increase cash flow for those who are suffering most.

As sdr said, reducing mortgage interest rates at the bottom end will unleash billions of dollars to help the economy.

If a homeowners had been faithfully paying his mortgage at 7% (can’t refinance for some reason). Why not reduce the rate to 4%?

The banks and corporations got their bailouts… now,let’s help the people who need it most. It’s about helping the economy as a whole, right now.[/quote]

Those billions of dollars were already unleashed since so many people haven’t been paying ANYTHING on their mortgages; some haven’t been paying for years.

I’m just trying to figure out what they are going to do to the current bondholders who have non-callable bonds. Are they going to demand these bondholders take a haircut, even though these bonds are guaranteed to pay a certain rate? How will the compensate these bondholders for the losses they are going to take on the (as yet, unrealized) cap gains?

If they do this, do they have any idea what it will do to private demand for govt-backed or GSE bonds?

IMHO, as a bondholder, I would view this is a type of default.[/quote]

There is a big difference between giving the weakest, most irresponsible and relatively small segment of the population additional discretionary income for a year or two than giving it to the stronger, responsible and larger segment of the population for the long term. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! And one with a very long term lasting impact.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=flu]This must suck donkey butt for folks who were responsible savers trying to save up for a home all these years. It would be ironic if these low interests rates were available only to people upside down.[/quote]

Don’t be bitter. Bitterness causes ulcers and activate enzymes that can cause cancer.

But seriously, monetary policy (low interest rates) is trickle down economics. The liquidity benefits mostly the banks, corporations and well-to-do individuals who need it least.

We need other policies to increase cash flow for those who are suffering most.

As sdr said, reducing mortgage interest rates at the bottom end will unleash billions of dollars to help the economy.

If a homeowners had been faithfully paying his mortgage at 7% (can’t refinance for some reason). Why not reduce the rate to 4%?

The banks and corporations got their bailouts… now,let’s help the people who need it most. It’s about helping the economy as a whole, right now.[/quote]

Those billions of dollars were already unleashed since so many people haven’t been paying ANYTHING on their mortgages; some haven’t been paying for years.

I’m just trying to figure out what they are going to do to the current bondholders who have non-callable bonds. Are they going to demand these bondholders take a haircut, even though these bonds are guaranteed to pay a certain rate? How will the compensate these bondholders for the losses they are going to take on the (as yet, unrealized) cap gains?

If they do this, do they have any idea what it will do to private demand for govt-backed or GSE bonds?

IMHO, as a bondholder, I would view this is a type of default.[/quote]

There is a big difference between giving the weakest, most irresponsible and relatively small segment of the population additional discretionary income for a year or two than giving it to the stronger, responsible and larger segment of the population for the long term. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! And one with a very long term lasting impact.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=flu]This must suck donkey butt for folks who were responsible savers trying to save up for a home all these years. It would be ironic if these low interests rates were available only to people upside down.[/quote]

Don’t be bitter. Bitterness causes ulcers and activate enzymes that can cause cancer.

But seriously, monetary policy (low interest rates) is trickle down economics. The liquidity benefits mostly the banks, corporations and well-to-do individuals who need it least.

We need other policies to increase cash flow for those who are suffering most.

As sdr said, reducing mortgage interest rates at the bottom end will unleash billions of dollars to help the economy.

If a homeowners had been faithfully paying his mortgage at 7% (can’t refinance for some reason). Why not reduce the rate to 4%?

The banks and corporations got their bailouts… now,let’s help the people who need it most. It’s about helping the economy as a whole, right now.[/quote]

Those billions of dollars were already unleashed since so many people haven’t been paying ANYTHING on their mortgages; some haven’t been paying for years.

I’m just trying to figure out what they are going to do to the current bondholders who have non-callable bonds. Are they going to demand these bondholders take a haircut, even though these bonds are guaranteed to pay a certain rate? How will the compensate these bondholders for the losses they are going to take on the (as yet, unrealized) cap gains?

If they do this, do they have any idea what it will do to private demand for govt-backed or GSE bonds?

IMHO, as a bondholder, I would view this is a type of default.[/quote]

There is a big difference between giving the weakest, most irresponsible and relatively small segment of the population additional discretionary income for a year or two than giving it to the stronger, responsible and larger segment of the population for the long term. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! And one with a very long term lasting impact.

[briansd1]

I don’t disagree with you patientrenter.

Low income renters do need more help.

Long term, we need to reduce and eliminate housing subsidies that distort the system.

But right now, we need to create the demand that will spur job creation and jobs for the unemployed (who need jobs today, not 5 years from now).

A strong economy will give us the tools to reform the system. It’s not possible to reform the system in a weak economy.

Banks and corporations already refinanced to low interest rates debts. So have individuals with good steady incomes and good credit.

People who are stuck in high interest rate loans, and have been paying the loans on time should get a break. Let’s lower their interest rates to what the large corporations are paying.

[briansd1]

I don’t disagree with you patientrenter.

Low income renters do need more help.

Long term, we need to reduce and eliminate housing subsidies that distort the system.

But right now, we need to create the demand that will spur job creation and jobs for the unemployed (who need jobs today, not 5 years from now).

A strong economy will give us the tools to reform the system. It’s not possible to reform the system in a weak economy.

Banks and corporations already refinanced to low interest rates debts. So have individuals with good steady incomes and good credit.

People who are stuck in high interest rate loans, and have been paying the loans on time should get a break. Let’s lower their interest rates to what the large corporations are paying.

[briansd1]

I don’t disagree with you patientrenter.

Low income renters do need more help.

Long term, we need to reduce and eliminate housing subsidies that distort the system.

But right now, we need to create the demand that will spur job creation and jobs for the unemployed (who need jobs today, not 5 years from now).

A strong economy will give us the tools to reform the system. It’s not possible to reform the system in a weak economy.

Banks and corporations already refinanced to low interest rates debts. So have individuals with good steady incomes and good credit.

People who are stuck in high interest rate loans, and have been paying the loans on time should get a break. Let’s lower their interest rates to what the large corporations are paying.

[briansd1]

I don’t disagree with you patientrenter.

Low income renters do need more help.

Long term, we need to reduce and eliminate housing subsidies that distort the system.

But right now, we need to create the demand that will spur job creation and jobs for the unemployed (who need jobs today, not 5 years from now).

A strong economy will give us the tools to reform the system. It’s not possible to reform the system in a weak economy.

Banks and corporations already refinanced to low interest rates debts. So have individuals with good steady incomes and good credit.

People who are stuck in high interest rate loans, and have been paying the loans on time should get a break. Let’s lower their interest rates to what the large corporations are paying.

[briansd1]

I don’t disagree with you patientrenter.

Low income renters do need more help.

Long term, we need to reduce and eliminate housing subsidies that distort the system.

But right now, we need to create the demand that will spur job creation and jobs for the unemployed (who need jobs today, not 5 years from now).

A strong economy will give us the tools to reform the system. It’s not possible to reform the system in a weak economy.

Banks and corporations already refinanced to low interest rates debts. So have individuals with good steady incomes and good credit.

People who are stuck in high interest rate loans, and have been paying the loans on time should get a break. Let’s lower their interest rates to what the large corporations are paying.

[sdrealtor]

PR
That program is already available to renters so no new program is needed. Its called buying a house at historically low interest rates when prices have dropped substantially from previous highs in nearly every market in the US.

[sdrealtor]

PR
That program is already available to renters so no new program is needed. Its called buying a house at historically low interest rates when prices have dropped substantially from previous highs in nearly every market in the US.

[sdrealtor]

PR
That program is already available to renters so no new program is needed. Its called buying a house at historically low interest rates when prices have dropped substantially from previous highs in nearly every market in the US.

[sdrealtor]

PR
That program is already available to renters so no new program is needed. Its called buying a house at historically low interest rates when prices have dropped substantially from previous highs in nearly every market in the US.

[Author]

Posts