Shared publicly  - 
President Obama has proposed a plan that will cut through the red tape that’s keeping millions of responsible homeowners from saving hundreds of dollars each month through refinancing: #WhyRefi
Chris Stehlik's profile photoSahil Ahuja's profile photoPolis Aniftos's profile photoGerald Pelletier's profile photo
جناب کاخ سفید
پوله نون از پوله نفت گرون تر شده تو ایران
Legalize it all.  Assign one pharmacy and doctor per user.  Prescribe it.  Tax it. Retire the debt.  Build schools.  Keep Bad Guys in prison for real crimes against people and property.  The list goes on.  But no one has the balls to say it.
Who could be against saving the average homeowner $3000? But who is the average homeowner? What rate do they currently pay? By refinancing for another 30 years, how much more do the banks make? This is a boon for the companies that sell mortgage refis.

It might help some people too, but like many plans by our government, it trades a short relief for more years of bondage.
This sounds like a GEICO commercial. Will this take longer than 15 minutes?
For those thinking this is news. click through the links. It's a recycle from last week's posting.
Wouldn't help me... I bought a house for a reasonable price in a great neighborhood. Hope it does help people though.
how about taking all of the money you're wasting cracking down on medical marijuana and actually helping the people that voted for you. 
so, in the opinion of those who have commented, because it doesn't solve all the world problems, we shouldn't implement it even though it helps most Americans?  Fix something - then move forward to fix something else ... don't just whine that good ideas are nothing but political maneuvering!!   
+George Sariego, apparently I'm missing the chance to post a bunch of stuff about legalizing marijuana all over the internet
George, I think the chance of this legislation helping most Americans is significantly overblown. Most Americans do not have mortgages that qualify and many who this would help would also be harmed in the long run. 

Maybe they should start by telling people what they can do to help themselves without all the posturing that will surely die for one reason or another in the recalcitrant congress.
If you make no money and are not generating income, a saving of $ 3,000.00 is irrelevant. The key to the problem is not to lower mortgage costs but to educate people about the refinacing and living on borrowed money which is so much a culture our society today. In the end you are what you have and actuality own and not the other way round.   
Save $3,000 a year, add five to ten years to the loan.

This doesn't save anyone money, it just kicks the can down the road and has you in the end paying MORE money to the banks not less.

+Chris Cecil Well for many it's either kick the can down the road and survive being in debt longer, or foreclose. Not a hard choice.
+John Heylin You are right it's not a hard choice, but for someone who doesn't qualify as a debt risk, nothing really gets solved does it. They need something else to break free. I don't have an answer for this. It's just the ugly truth.
+Brooks Smith If you read the plan, it says they are getting a new 30-year fixed term. By definition if you are refinancing, you have already worked your way down the existing term, to it's a new term, a longer term. Technically not an extended term with respect to the existing mortgage.
If you want to give me back $3000 that you stole from me (well took by force, I guess) quit spending millions on advertising and cut me a check.
It's all a numbers game to try to get the American people to believe that Obama is looking out for them, when in reality he is just looking out for himself.
+Dennis Griess Only if the Debtor decides to only to pay the lower P&I. If they are in the position to continue their old amount then the rest can apply to principal, thus actually lowering the term. So, this is a great plan regardless if the debtor is struggling to pay their bills or not. It gives them the option to pay down their house at a lower rate, or have extra cash to spend or save. 
I don't see it as a scam, but I see it as over-hyped and under performing, but hey, it's a government program. You never get more than advertised and rarely get all that's promised (or implied through effective advertising).
If Obama was looking out for himself, the last thing he would want to do is try to run another term! He would be better off signing book deals and walking the talking circuit - compared to his relatively meager presidential salary of $700K (perks included). America is nothing short of a 4 to 8 year lab experiment for every president, and he was probably one trying to break that trend. The problems this country faces are becoming increasingly complex and inter-related every year. You cannot fix one without fixing the other... and no one person can do it in the face of such tremendous polarity around every issue plaguing the country. At least not in 4 or 8 years. If Romney wants to become President and do his thing, I have no personal bias against him. He just needs to understand that running a country is very different than running a corporation...
+Chris Cecil called it a scam. I was referring to him. Yes, agree that Obama has been tepid at best against irresponsible banks, but to claim that this does nothing is utterly ridiculous. 
The Average home owner who will never ever ever ever see Obama's plan work, will save nothing.  Remember the last home refinance program that helped 700 people and cost like 100 billion.
Saving money is saving money. However, if a family is having financial issues and can't cut $250 a month from the family budget, then they have far larger issues than $250 a month can help with. To me this does more to prop up home values and rental costs, which ends up costing people more money in inflated home and rental prices, when they should be far lower than they are.
None of that makes sense.  The equity you have remains the same.  The amount owed remains the same.  The interest rate drops.  The bank making the initial loan has its full loan repaid as the original contract calls for.  There is no requirement that one refi for 30 years or that one not pay it off sooner.  Sure, it props up housing value.  And you think that is bad because?
Love it great way to help homeowners. Now is Congress would do some work to help American families we would be better off. This congress has passed the least number of laws and bills in the past 40 years. While they argue president Obama isn't doing his job they are doing nothing. How is it possible to go from an average 400 laws and bills passed in a session to only 100. Even bipartisan bills. This is so unpatriotic its crazy. God bless America. God bless President Obama.
Here is a bill that could help if the value of your home decreases due to let's say economic melt down caused a Republican administration then insurance rates should reflect the drop in value and reduce rates to match the value. But wait that's government regulation that hinders growth I guess so no let's keep the small guy down even during a depression. Obama forward 2012.
Gimmicks, I'll say. Reduce the size of the government, especially depts such as dod,dhs.
I guess Republicans will do nothing till the elections are over.  Going over the cliff is their idea of running the country...disgusting
Really? If this is the economy selling point, we are in deep trouble! The whole idea of good economy is no one need to refinance the mortgage! Everyone just have job to pay off their mortgage. 
But if people can refinance and save 3000 a year and even some of them spend that money someone is going to have to make the stuff they want to buy which will stimulate the businesses ti hire people to make the stuff which will put money in more peoples pockets which they will want to spend etc. Some people say this is a business driven economy, it's not. It's a consumer driven economy. The more money you put in consumers pockets the better.
Jane.... None, eh? So saving money to save money doesn't make sense? As well, I find it simple to understand a family in financial trouble, unable to cut from the family budget, has much larger issues than $250 saved a month will help with.

Yes, fake values in any market are very bad. Inflated/fake home values is one of the reasons the housing market crash was so devastating. Inflated home and rental prices, costs Americans money they would otherwise spend in the economy and other investments. It also makes people scared to buy again and slower buyers, which slows the recovery down even more.
$3,000 may pay for a family's electric bill for two years now, but wait until Obama finishes shutting down all the power plants that aren't owned by his friends.  It won't near cover that cost soon...
Richard, I think it would take tens of millions of people getting refinanced for it to have any type of real economic impact. Helping is helping, don't get me wrong.... but pretending it's going to boost the economy is a bit silly when it hasn't done that any other time they've done stuff like this.
I hope this gets through, just about to build a new house!
+Chris Winters I get tired of people saying this or that is not going to help much. So it will help only a little. Put enough of the little helps together and you have a lot. It better than the Republicans let's go back to Bush era politics and watch the economy implode.
The problem isn't that it will only help a little.  This will hurt!  It is nothing but another big giveway to the big banks.  Mark my words,  You will pay more to the bank after this than you would have before it.
+Rich Barnes Your new house won't help you take advantage of this program. It's to help cash-strapped people who don't qualify for the high-interest mortgages they have and can't figure out how, or don't qualify to, refinance. The idea is to help take some pressure of their current circumstances, not to help them build new digs.

But since the legislation hasn't been written yet and the special interests haven't weighed in, you might want to send a check to your congressman. Maybe he'll help you out if you promise to get him/her reelected.
+Richard Shivell I believe we we're talking about the economy? This will not help the economy even a little. At that, propping up the housing market, is a Bush era policy.
Key words here are "responsible" homeowners, and dismissal of red-tape.... this isn't about propping the economy, it's about ensuring that the housing market doesn't collapse because of bad loans taken during the bush-era.
Thanks +Dennis Griess , I should have know better! That wouldn't make much sense if it applied to me.
The last time they did this the bigger banks simply sold off the mortgages that qualified for the program to smaller banks, because they didn't meet the min-levels for the reg, which pushed people back to normal refinance rules, thus not qualify. Which is why so few people took advantage of the program.
Bush-era Obama-era, both are banker puppets.  We are in the Banker-era and their best buddies Bush, Obama and Romney are not going to do a thing that is in our best interest instead of theirs.  Just look at who funds them, that is their masters and they will never cross them.  Once the fine print comes out it will show this is bad for the people, good for the banks.  Same as always...
I hear it to often how they profit and the homeowners end up lossing. There a millions of American who lost there homes betwween 2009-2012. There are an estimate of over 1,000,000,000 people who lost there homes. How can we trust these banks/Goverment?
Um there aren't a billion homes in the US, heck the entire population of the USA isn't 1/3 of that. Is this hyperbole or just a typo?
+Chris Cecil that makes sense to a degree... as far as "funded"  Obama is the only of those three who makes less than a million a year and makes those profits from presidential income and book sales.... not sure if that's what you meant.
The problem is people who bought more than they could afford.  While all my friends and co-workers were buying homes they could not truly afford, my family and I remained in the small, affordable home that we've lived in for the past 18 years.  Why should my tax dollars now be used to bail out everybody else?  In that case, how about the government pay for my kids' college educations, because I haven't done a very good job of saving for that.  No... forget I said that... I don't want to give them any ideas.
status quo. we're all criminals and beggars under the status quo. 

Please suh, I want some more. - Oliver Twist
I'm not a beggar or a criminal.... not in the least.
It was figurative, but let's test it... Do you honestly think you comply fully with every law and regulation in the US? How can you even realistically know them all? How about keeping all your earned money? Nope, you submit a fat application to the IRS to get some of it back every April.
+Dennis Griess And the federal government, by nature of state-to-state laws by way of constitution is really in no position to say otherwise.
The very beginning? Cause the country was founded in 1862? Before that no IRS
These are things that should come from the private sector not the President. The President should be proposing ways to protect our border, reduce the tax burden on actual tax payers, privatizing social security so that we actually have retirement accounts that can be passed to our heirs, etc. 
That is not true either. There was a time when our laws were simple and made sense. Victim=crime. If you hurt another life, liberty or property got to jail. If not go about your way. We need to get back to that system.
+Jeneeya SUWAL Banking is who provides loans. Pretty straight forward. They should decide who they loan money to not the President. The housing crisis was caused by Congress making banks loan money to those who were not credit worthy. They caused the mess they are pretending to fix now.
Dr Bits
Bryan: The bank's problems are not about loans, but gambling on derivatives and low stability stocks and bonds. The congressional action was about "Freddy Mac" and "Fanny Mai". A totally different situation. The "Banking crisis" was caused by mergers of banks and investment firms (allowed by deregulation).

Chris: Because of their special protected status (limited liability), corporations are regulated. The most important rule for public corporations is that their primary responsibility is the benefit of the stockholders (management often ignores this). They are also responsible for benefit to the communities in which the stockholders live and in which the corporation does business.
+Dr Bits Freddy and Fanny should not be supported with my tax dollars, period. The derivatives are a result of Congress making banks loan money to those who were not credit worthy. Then Bush and Obama bailed those companies out. Idiotic. 
If it was just red tape that was holding out up, then why wasn't this done YEARS ago... Answer, because there's a lot more to it than that...obviously!
Dr Bits
+Bryan: Fanny and Freddy are part of the federal Housing and Urban Development department. They are government programs that were supposed to make more mortgages available to first time home buyers. They were put on the stock exchange for political reasons (part of deregulation). They became insolvent (basically bankrupt), so Congress took them off the stock exchange.

More low income loans usually means many more jobs. The problem is that some large banks took the permission to issue "Sub-prime" loans to an extreme (including issuing loans to people with 0 income). Some banks just forged paperwork.

The derivatives are not related to any government edicts or programs. They are ways for investment companies to gamble. When the investment companies bought banks, the money from the banks also became available for "investment" (and gambling). Part of the reason that the biggest banks (Chase, BofA, and so on) are not issuing more mortgages is that they think they can make more money on derivatives.

What triggered the "Wall Street Meltdown" was one company issuing $400 billion worth of derivatives that essentially gambled that housing prices would continue to rise. Those losses multiplied, because deregulation allowed banks to operate without any liquid assets (M1). They had no money to cover their losses. Over $2 trillion evaporated (it was only bits in computers).

In April 2012, Chase played with derivatives. They gambled $5 billion and lost $2 billion. The Congressional Banking Committee interviewed the CEO of Chase today.

The solution is to require that FDIC insured banks (and their holding companies) only invest in A rated stocks and bonds or hedge-options (the simplest derivatives) based on those stocks and bonds. If companies want to gamble further, they should divest the gambling parts of the company or separate these investments into separate "Funds" (as they do with investment in start-ups).
Heh. I recall those complex mortgage derivatives were rated A. The ratings agencies were also complicit in the financial meltdown because they gave cover for a lot of other groups, e.g. pension funds, to invest in them.

And sadly, we bailed them out. I wonder how bad it would have been to let all those institutions fail. That would have been a painful enough of a lesson that they'd remember, instead of being back to business-as-usual.

Today the Obama and Romney campaigns were both talking about the future of the U.S. economy. If I believe the sound bites, part of Romney's solution package is more deregulation. As long as the Republican Party won't admit any responsibility for causing the meltdown in the first place, and that at least some regulation is necessary, they are are not fit to lead.

Not to mention that they let the tail wag the dog in the case of Richard Grenell, an openly gay advisor to the Romney campaign who was viciously attacked by right-wing extremists. Until the Republican Party can free itself of the über influence of their extreme right, they have no business being in power.
hey government, stop pandering to the banks and get a real job!
oh yeah and stop killing the earth and its people, that would be great thanks!
and I almost forgot, STOP telling lies to the people!
man unrelated to this post, i just seen on cnn that obama is letting young illegals stay here??? are you kidding! i guess breaking the law is only for certain people, like i guess its ok to tell white lies???  good going obama, way to pander to the latino vote!!! 
way to beg for a vote, so shameful!!!
He's pandering to the illegal alien vote. We should not assume that all those of Latin descent are in favor of illegal aliens being able to vote. Those who legally immigrated here are against this type of legislation.
Usted señor Bryan Bootka,jamas venga a poner en duda de que
manera emigraron mis compañeros hermanos y amigos,la duda
que usted  crea es como si usted fuera el dueño del pais,los
latinos botaran sin ninguna duda por Barack Obama y punto
I bought a house in 2006 (kids).  No one, WH program or not, will give me a refi.  Lowest rates in history and its useless to me.
The biggest problem here is Americans themselves, which I am part of. Most Americans have no idea how to manage their own finances, or a budget. These people have no business taking on a mortgage. There was a time when people used to pay cash for their homes, and credit was barely ever given. That meant that people had to pay attention to their finances, which is rarely done now.

Americans, themselves, are to blame for the way things are. We are responsible for who is in the government that we blame for everything. We are responsible for the mortgages we take that we can't afford. We are responsible for letting presidents of the past dig us into a hole we can't get out of.

I have NEVER trusted any president, or politician, before Obama. But, before he was elected he said some things that made sense, and made NO illusions that it would "get worse before it gets better", or that it would be a "long and hard road" ahead for us, which for some reason people forget he said. He has since tried to pass many bills and laws to help us, but congress has fought him at every turn. Since we all believe that politicians are greedy and they do what is in their best interests instead of what is good for Americans, why do you think almost all of them fought him on what he tried to get passed. Logically, he really cares about the American people and is trying to help us but Congress won't let him. We allow Republicans and other politicians to lie to us and accept it because we're so used to it, and we blame Obama for everything that goes wrong.

But, if our regular politicians only really ever do what's in their best interests, and we know it, why are so many of us against Obama? It makes no sense. The only reason I can think of is that most Americans are sheep, and would rather let the politicians think for them instead of thinking for themselves. And when we get a president that actually cares we can't believe it either because it's never happened before or because we listen to politicians that don't care about us at all.

Take Romney as an example. Everyone heard him say, "I don't really care about the very poor, we have a safety net for those people". For some reason, the American people, who the majority of are considered "poor", have either conveniently forgotten about that or have rationalized it away. What if Obama said that? We would have him impeached! But, people are willing to elect Romney to be president, someone who HAS said that, what psychiatrists would call a Freudian slip, a subconcious thought that you say accidentally. And he was elected as Republican nominee for president? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?!?!
+kevin salveson Does that mean you have additional money to put down and solid credit as well? I cannot imagine that another bank will not take your money. 
I've never missed a payment.  I don't have any more to put down.  I bought the smallest 3 bedroom I could in an ok part of the LA suburbs and then it tanked 60% in value.  Those are the breaks.
Kind of a ridiculous proposal considering how much more red tape this administration has created
Kind of ridiculous an assertion there, Seth.

Add a comment...