What’s the Constitutional authority for HARP? It’s not the General Welfare clause, so where in the Constitution does the government gain the authority to run a program like that in the first place?
If someone can show that, I would consider the program. Until then, I’m dead set against it because it’s unconstitutional.
There is no way for the housing sector to become normal again until prices reach an equilibrium. The slower this happens the longer the economy has to wait and adjust.
Middle class, employed people not receiving a check from the government is not punishment.
For the record, I (generally) detest welfare programs that do nothing but create incentive to stay on the programs and thus building a power base of dependents for certain political groups.
That being said, the government SHOULD have a role to help people in times of crisis if done properly. Have requirements and limitations so that the money/help goes to those that will use it properly and not become reliant on it. HARP is one such program. Unlike most welfare and entitlements, this program requires the homeowner to NOT say screw it and become deadbeats. It requires you to be a responsible owner who has BEEN responsible in the past.
To my way of thinking, HARP is an example of a program that rides the middle of the aisle and if not for ulterior political motives, everyone could agree with. In fact this is the type of responsible program that I could see the republicans creating.
You missed post #6. Although, granted, that wasn’t so much “snark” as “foaming hatred spewed forth like the bile of Cthuhlu”.
To the matter at hand: Well, honestly what can you say? It’s a program with vague rules, vague intentions, vague goals, vague costs, and vague benefits. The only thing you can bring to the table is an emotional reaction, because the program itself is too messy to make any kind of rational cost/benefit analysis.
In which case, my answer would be that it’s a stupid idea, because if you can’t make a reasonable analysis, you, can’t make an adequate judgement. To be sure, there are course of action which we don’t make such an analsysis because it’s immoral or otherwise unacceptable, but even there we need the possibility of doing so, else we don’t even really know what we’re judging.
So, you think refinancing is immoral also? After all, you signed a contract, a contract, by the way, which probably says you can pay it off early whenever you want.
My reading of the cited article is that the amount owed stays exactly the same. The government is just helping people take advantage of low interest rates who wouldn’t otherwise be able to. Depending on the expected default rate, the government might actually be making money on the deal, given their low borrowing costs. They might be helping the banks, who usually lose money on foreclosures. They are helping responsible homeowners who are losing equity on foreclosures in the neighborhood. And they are helping the economy by putting more spending money into people’s pockets.
As for housing prices, they have already stabilized and are on the way up. By a good bit where I live.
I last moved, and thus bought in 1996, when house prices in the Bay Area were much lower than today. That does not make me any more virtuous than someone 10 years younger than who bought near the top. Stretching to buy a house didn’t get invented just before the bubble.
Rules
The rules are anything but vague. The dates and eligibility requirements are set and specific.
Intentions
Your post is hyperbolic but its intention is to allow people who are underwater on their mortgage an opportunity to take advantage of current rates and remove PMI - which BTW - is borderline corrupt to begin with.
Goals
See intentions
Costs
What government program EVER created was not vague in terms of cost. However unlike so many other government programs, the lenders that helped cause this mess will take on MOST of the cost NOT the taxpayers (IMO I have no cite).
Goals
See intentions
Benefits
Really… less foreclosures, improved housing market, improved economy
I see so many of the conservatives just automatically lining up against this. Can you honestly say you would say the same if this plan it was created by the republicans?
I’m unclear why this is framed (other than that the OP chose to) as a liberal/conservative thing. Are you supporting this just because it’s a liberal idea? Would you have fought this is a Republican started this?
Bailing people out when they make bad economic judgements is also very bad for the economy, in the long run.
You answered your own question there. The contract does say you can pay it off early, so refinancing is perfectly legit.
That sounds reasonable. One problem is that the legislation is vague, so beaurocrats get to basically implement whatever the heck they want; whereas I believe that objective laws are best, so we can act and know beforehand whether our acts are legal and what the financial implications are, without having to read the govermental tea leaves.
The other problem is that the government would be distorting the economy. IMHO, the proper role for the government is mostly to make all parties in the economy responsible for what would otherwise be externalities. For example, if a company making widgets but fouling the ecology in the process, they need to be forced to include the cost of fixing the ecology in the price of their widgets.
This is a completely different kind of pressure applied to the economy, and it would take a lot more scrutiny than I am able to do to see whether it meets what I feel should be a high bar for the government messing with the economy.
Republicans aren’t conservative these days. I wouldn’t consider endorsement by the Republican party any kind of boost to an idea; quite the contrary.
Why is PMI borderline corrupt? It’s taking a policy to cover a contingency. No doubt there has been a lot of corrupt use of PMI, in cases where mortgage companies pushed through loans that shouldn’t be granted in the first place. We can blame both sides of the aisle for this; pro-biz folks wanting no goverment controls along with liberals wanting government subsidized housing market, and pro-biz folks liking the liquidity offered by the gov’t behemoths.
The problem was allowing short-term profit seekers to hide behind government programs that should have been policed by long-term profit seekers but weren’t policed at all.
When people are responsible for the loans they write, they don’t tend to write many bad ones. When they can just bundle them up and sell them with little peeking under the covers, it leads to PMC’s being too liberal regarding what they allow as proof of income, etc.
I don’t think you saw what I was responding to.
It’s unclear to me who the OP is asking this question to:
a) Fiscal conservatives, who could be Dems or Repubs, or,
b) Political conservatives who in this case would be Republicans.
My point being that I think this is largely a question to the fiscal conservatives, who are found in large percentages in both parties.
I think coupling this to a party give those that have an ax to grind, (your quote above is a case in point) an opportunity to cloud the issue.
Because Obama’s State of the Union called for the HARP 3.0 framework (known officially as the U.S. Senate Bill 3085) has been lauded by the democrats and been opposed by the majority of republicans.
More details at Govtrack
Also I have voted republican most of my adult life…
We have a problem caused by government, i.e., the people. The cost to fix the problem should be borne by those who caused it. The trouble is the problem is not some individual’s house and economic situation, it’s the impact on the economy as a whole. So I don’t know. Maybe if the homeowner never gets a capital gains deduction or exemption then, or something like that to make it more like a loan than a gift. But I don’t think it’s impossible for the government to take steps to help stabilize the housing market.
Which you said in the OP, so, if the poster couldn’t be bothered to read that, you really don’t need to be bothered to respond to them.
But, yeah, your type of moderated thinking just isn’t popular in the Republican right now. That’s compromising the ideals, which are sacrosanct. But, if you actually think about it, you can’t cause another bubble burst right after the first one, so there’s room for this as a temporary measure.
This was my point (and thanks, I can read).
I understand what the OP wanted to judge.
But when we bring politics into this and immediately color it as a Republican idea or a Democrat idea, we bring so much baggage into it. Why not just discuss the issue at hand BigT, without grinding the ax? It degrades your argument.
My question was rhetorical. puddleglum seemed to be objecting to the program because of the promise to pay a certain amount. Which is clearly nonsense.
I haven’t (and don’t intend to) read the actual policy. I’m pretty sure it is legal, and any financial predictions are reading tea leaves.
The government messes with the economy whatever it does or does not do. Too stringent regulations do this, inadequate regulations do too as we saw. We can see this program as an attempt to relieve some of the problems caused by letting mortgage companies run unchecked during the Bush years. And, as far as the effect on the economy goes, it is pretty mild, since it more or less maintains the status quo. If banks wanted to issue competitive loans to the same set of people, they are free to do so. They’ve been free to do so for years, been supported, but have dragged their feet.
Given a specific amount of adjusting that the economy will have to endure, making it longer also makes it less extreme.
Which is the whole point anyway. That’s why we have the ability to pay taxes on every paycheck instead of once a year. You spread out a particular economic event over time, to make it’s effect more bearable. People still have to eat, heat their homes, etc.. Those are fairly fixed costs, to a certain degree.
When leaving a building, do you take the elevator or jump out a window to save time?
There is a value in regulating the speed at which properties enter the market, so you don’t oversaturate and cause widespread problems. Giving people options that let them stay in their homes, rather than abandoning them lets the market approach equilibrium rather than swing wildly towards equilibrium.
And there is value in not rewarding people for making bad economic decisions.
What about giving people who can’t afford a home in an inflated market the option of buying one?
How “wildly” is the market going to swing without this program?