Barney Frank Getting Desperate

[Conan71]

Congressman Frank is using $60mm of your money to buy votes from Mass. homeowners.  And yes, he refers to the corporate bailouts as, uh, ahem, "bailouts".

Facing a wave of Republican challengers as the Nov. 2 election looms, top Democrats are touting a $60 million foreclosure bailout for jobless Bay State homeowners as a reason to keep incumbents - Barney Frank, for example - in office.

"That's what this election is all about," U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) said at the Jackson Square community development group Urban Edge. "Make a choice: Do you want to be active in addressing our problems or are you gonna let it all go?"

Though hardly billed as a campaign stop, there was no shortage of kudos for Frank, who pushed for the $1 billion HUD Emergency Homeowners Loan Program that offers no-interest loans to 50,000 jobless homeowners facing foreclosure nationwide.

"I cannot think of anybody, beyond anarchism, that would find this an offensive program," said Frank (D-Newton).

President Obama's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan gushed: "You know there is no one who has worked harder - for Massachusetts, and all American families to keep them in decent, safe housing - and that is Barney Frank."

The loans, at $20,000 apiece and payable at the end of the mortgage term, will aid 3,000 to 5,000 Bay State homeowners.

Big companies received a big bailout paid by all taxpayers," said Lew Finfer, head of the Massachusetts Communities Action Network. "So, it's fair that homeowners who were hurt by their actions get some help from the government too."

http://news.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/20101006democrats_speak_frank-ly_in_jackson_sq/srvc=home&position=also

[nathanm]

Why is it that any program that benefits the taxpayer is seen as "buying votes?"

[Conan71]

Why is it that any program that benefits the taxpayer is seen as "buying votes?"

You can't be that glib.  $20,000 given to 3000 to 5000 Massachusetts homeowners?

And people wonder why we don't have enough to "adequately" fund education.  It's self-serving vote buying like this.  How many of those voters are situated in his district?  It's great PR for Rep. Frank in a difficult election year.

[nathanm]

You can't be that glib.  $20,000 given to 3000 to 5000 Massachusetts homeowners?

And people wonder why we don't have enough to "adequately" fund education.  It's self-serving vote buying like this.  How many of those voters are situated in his district?  It's great PR for Rep. Frank in a difficult election year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this isn't an appropriation specifically for Frank's district. I don't see anything wrong with a Congressperson alerting people to existing programs that can help them. If it was a special earmark, that's a horse of a different color, and while I admire Frank's helpfulness to the little guy, I'd say there's a definite appearance of (legal) impropriety.

[we vs us]

Wow, Conan . . . paranoid much?  The program -- part of HUD's "Hardest Hit" fund, which targets some of the worst hit areas of the country by foreclosures -- allocates $1bil out of $3bil for areas that aren't on the Hardest Hit list . . . including, presumably, MA.  This is from an August 2010 press release.

Under the program, eligible borrowers must:

   1. Be at least three months delinquent in their payments and have a reasonable likelihood of being able to resume repayment of their mortgage payments and related housing expenses within two years;
   2. Have a mortgage property that is the principal residence of the borrower, and eligible borrowers may not own a second home;
   3. Demonstrate a good payment record prior to the event that produced the reduction of income.

HUD will announce additional details, including the targeted communities and other program specifics when the program is officially launched in the coming weeks.

It doesn't say anywhere that you have to an eligible voter. 

[Conan71]

Sure guys.  Let's loan more money to people who already can't repay what they previously borrowed.  That makes a whole lot of sense.  You honestly think my bank or Crapital One would be interested in loaning me $20,000 on top of $200K I already can't afford so I can make payments on that $200K?

Who wants to bet these $20,000 "loans" wind up forgiven in the end?

[Gaspar]

I'm not sure this country can survive any more Barney.  

I'm sending some cash to Sean Bielat.  If you would like to do the same visit his website.
http://seanbielat.org/

[we vs us]

Sure guys.  Let's loan more money to people who already can't repay what they previously borrowed.  That makes a whole lot of sense.  You honestly think my bank or Crapital One would be interested in loaning me $20,000 on top of $200K I already can't afford so I can make payments on that $200K?

That's why the government isn't in the banking business.  Crap. One needs a profit to survive.  Not so the gov.  

These loans are specifically for people who are unemployed or have declared bankruptcy because of a medical emergency.  Unemployment isn't a permanent condition, and when people get back on their feet they will be able to start paying again.  Medical bankruptcy also isn't a permanent condition, so presumably these folks could start paying again soon, too.  Look at the stated criteria.  It's for people who would are traditionally good bets but have been affected adversely by the economy.  It's not throwing money down a hole.

[Conan71]

That's why the government isn't in the banking business.  Crap. One needs a profit to survive.  Not so the gov.  

These loans are specifically for people who are unemployed or have declared bankruptcy because of a medical emergency.  Unemployment isn't a permanent condition, and when people get back on their feet they will be able to start paying again.  Medical bankruptcy also isn't a permanent condition, so presumably these folks could start paying again soon, too.  Look at the stated criteria.  It's for people who would are traditionally good bets but have been affected adversely by the economy.  It's not throwing money down a hole.

Those are precisely excluding factors from getting a loan in the private sector.  I worked in consumer lending, you don't keep lending money to people who can't pay it back.  Do you not realize this is the exact reason we are in the financial mess we are in?  The government cannot afford to be an endless backstop against all financial misfortune.

[we vs us]

Those are precisely excluding factors from getting a loan in the private sector.  I worked in consumer lending, you don't keep lending money to people who can't pay it back.  Do you not realize this is the exact reason we are in the financial mess we are in?  The government cannot afford to be an endless backstop against all financial misfortune.

The reason we are in the financial mess we are in is because a bubble based in private real estate markets popped.  At this point it has embroiled both good and bad borrowers. Saying no to all measures to save homeowners is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and destroying real value along with the inflated value.  This HUD measure is meant to help otherwise good risks through this bad period.  Luckily, the federal government doesn't have to operate with profit solely in mind, otherwise, yes, it would have to follow the same rules as the private sector and lend only to people who can pay it back. 

Please note that this means neither that 1) I'm endorsing giving every homeowner a bridge loan or 2) that the federal government should be in the business of burning piles of money in the backyard.   However, their standards seem reasonable and it seems obvious that they are trying to target the folks who are otherwise good risks. 

[nathanm]

It's funny how people on one hand complain that the big banks got bailed out but the average joe got nothing, yet they don't like it when the average joe gets help, either.

It's important to note the part about the homeowner having good payment history prior to the event causing the hardship. This makes it less likely money is just being thrown away on people who will never be able to pay their mortgages.

[Conan71]

The bubble happened because values rose to absurd levels due to an overabundance of easy money and very few qualifications to get that money so builders kept building little Taj Mahals and charging more and people kept flipping up on their properties, banking profits until they landed into a house they finally could not afford. 

IOW- The bubble happened by lending money to bad risks. 

In this case, someone without a job in a depressed economy or a recent "medical" bankruptcy is a bad risk.  There's a lot more than medical bills which get discharged in those bankruptcies.

Keep in mind, Barney Frank is also the same man who had oversight ability over Fannie and Freddie who was saying in the months leading up to the huge collapse nothing was amiss at either one of these entities.

[guido911]

Frank says working with GOP in the appropriations committee will be a "pain in the @ss"

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/5ADE5DE3-A8E2-46DE-8F5B-390F7CB953A0/

[Conan71]

Frank says working with GOP in the appropriations committee will be a "pain in the @ss"

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/5ADE5DE3-A8E2-46DE-8F5B-390F7CB953A0/

Let's see how well I can channel Breadburner:

He should know, he's sort of an expert...

[Ed W]

Frank says working with GOP in the appropriations committee will be a "pain in the @ss"

"Working with"?  I thought the Republicans were adopting Stalin's scorched earth policy.  No cooperation.  No compromise.  No retreat.  That may serve narrow ideological ends, but it's not beneficial to the country.