72 Comments

• 1. Patrick  |  October 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am

  This is kind of funny. I am a hardcore democrat, and a renter. Since McCain was by far the most palatable GOP candidate for me, he was the only one I’d have even considered voting for in a general election. So a few months ago, I told my Republican friends that one issue that, if it became a huge issue of dispute in an election, could actually drive me to McCain was if Obama promised some huge action to forgive owner mortgages. As a renter, I am sorry, but i do NOT want people like you, Mark, forgiven - home prices NEED to drop back to a reasonable multiplier of salaries, and it is much more fair for me, who has saved up for the past 4 years, to get to buy your house (or your neighbors) for $150 than it is for you to be forgiven for your (sorry) foolish decision to buy at a peak (presumably at some cost to me, the taxpayer).

  Fortunately it turned out to be McCain who made this foolish and unfair suggestion. While I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama matches it, it will still be unfair.

  (for the record the other issues I thought I might agree with McCain more were nuclear energy & space policy, but fortunately Obama has been close enough on those as well…)

• 2. RealConservative  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:05 am

  I’m a bit confused. I would have thought liberals would have loved this idea of taking from the “better off” taxpayers and giving to the poor, less fortunate. This fits right into the Obama-Robinhood-doctrine. I bet Obama was sitting there going “Dang! Why didn’t I think of that? Or why didn’t one of my 300 paid advisors think of that for me?”

• 3. CanadianObserver  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:12 am

  Mark, I’m sorry to hear that these final few months of the Bush presidency has brought you such grief. Not too long ago you were riding high on a financial bubble. Everything in Mark’s world was bright & rosy and the Bush economy was as strong as the rock of Gibraltar.

  After years of worshipping at the feet of George W., it now looks as if harsh reality has hit home.

• 4. bagni  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:20 am

  markhandout
  last time us spacetruckers checked
  it was a free mkt
  that’s what you always profess, right?

  no one forced you to pay too much for your house
  and why should taxpayers bail you out?
  bad enough bailing out investment banks

  cowboy up markiepoo
  you lost money fair and square
  it’s the american way

• 5. bagni  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:45 am

  p.s.
  mark
  mccain wanting to bail you out of your black hole
  makes him sound like he’s even left of that freak bill clinton

• 6. Parker  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am

  Mark,
  Am I reading this correctly? You are asking to refinance your home mortgage, during the height of the greatest housing and credit crisis in this nation’s history and you are incredulous over the fact that that bank denied you?

  Sorry. You made your bed and now you don’t like sleeping in it. Like it or not these times will be a legacy of your hero GW. We’re all suffering through this in one way or another and as a result, so will the GOP as it’s only human nature to blame the ‘person in charge’ when things go wrong.

• 7. Aitch  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:55 am

  Mark, there is still hope for you yet. In last night’s debate McCain proposed a planwhere the federal government can buy your mortgage, then renogotiate a new mortgage for the diminished value of your home. This would certainly help you out. Though, this would come at high cost to the taxpayer.

• 8. phnx  |  October 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am

  Patrick, I was shocked when McCain proposed this last night. This was pure pandering. But he is not alone, Obama has also expressed the need to address “keeping people in the houses”. Both are proposing the same thing.

  As taxpayers we are screwed regardless of who gets in, it now just a question of the size of the screw.

• 9. Rasmus  |  October 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am

  I find it amusing that Mark thinks McCain won…brahhhh. Obama was clearly calmer, more rational and better at articulating his points than McCain (and all the polls I have seen so far support this). McCain could have gone into a frenzy, beating up several members of the audience and Mark would still be declaring him the winner just the way he did with Palin.

• 10. OhioOrrin  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  Ron Paul has correctly noted that the Fed govt’s actions re Freddie & Fannie has had the effect of sustaining above-market-value home prices.

  Just like in the tech bubble when share prices finally collapsed, the residental real estate market will resume stability following a devaluing period.

• 11. djp  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  With all due respect, the rational thing to do is to walk away. Even moreso if it is a no-recourse loan. i would take another run at the bank, but that is how the market works and they are leaving you no choice. I know it is emotionally tough, but there is absolutely no reason to throw good money after bad, and good decisions are based on facts and circumstances, not emotions.

  I feel bad for you, but this is how the market works. It is a little silly to claim that it is a “democrat inspired” collapse in the market, as if the dems made you buy a house, made you take out a huge loan, etc., etc.

• 12. djp  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

  “A lot of wealth has been lost, and some way has to be found to make the debt load of the people match the real value of the nation’s real estate ”

  There is an existing way to do that: it is called bankruptcy. Or you can have socialism, which is the gov’t going to banks and saying: “I don’t care what your contract says, I say the loan is X” Imagine how much more the market will tank if creditors can not rely on the face value of their claims. No one will lend money and the credit crisis will worsen.

• 13. Kahn  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  Parker wrote “Sorry. You made your bed and now you don?t like sleeping in it.”

  Idiot. That phrase would literally apply to Barney Frank. He (while sleeping with a Fannie Mae executive) and other idiot liberals pushed a socialist home ownership program through Fannie and Freddie for years. Didn’t you ever hear him spout “fairness” 20 times in a paragraph?

  It was a huge secret and unfunded socialist agenda that ruined the financial markets.

  It is hard to argue with people who refuse to read or think. Oh sure, come back with some insult…. while still refusing to read or think. It will make my point.

• 14. Zach  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  IMO, McCain did nothing to shore up independent undecideds. We all heard from the media and McCains campaign themselves that we were going to see a more agressive John McCain in this debate. How disappointed I was. Frankly, I thought Obama easily out-classed McCain in style and presentation; McCain was prone all night to mispeak, and generally bumbling around with his language. Which I think makes for a stronger case for his critics to keep bringing up his age.

  All of this is ironic because the prevailing wisdom was that a “town-hall style” debate was McCain’s strong-suit and Obama’s weakness, and maybe that is still true, but lastnight was a terrible example of said “wisdom”.

  As a McCain supporter, I was very disappointed with McCains delivery and honestly at times was a bit embarassed by it. Mind you, I’m still going to vote McCain, and I personally feel that his message is far better than that of Obama’s, but theres no denying that Obama has a rock-solid presentation.

  The whole time I was watching the debate unfold, I kept thinking to myself “how much better would this be if Romney were here?”

• 15. djp  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  the other thing I would say is get legal advice before walking. You sound like you at least have the luxury of not NEEDING to walk, so you can time it favorably, etc.

• 16. Eric T  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

  Mark,
  -you said-

  “tossing money down the black hole of a collapsed Las Vegas housing market, watching my tax dollars go to bail out Frank and Dodd’s buddies who created this whole mess”

  sounds like the man has got you down.

  Big Bank- making enough interest off you, to buy two or three houses.
  Big Government- taxing you enough to buy a few houses and give them to people they prefer, with government subsidizied housing.

  Most of us are in the same boat.
  No equity, because the value of the house has fell thru the floor. Up to your neck in Debt

  I really do like McCain’s plan, stabilize the housing market. McCain did a much better job in this debate than the last debate, I think that people following the race closely can see that, John McCain knows the system and how it works, and worked with both parties, to fix problems for years.

  Obama has not, he has never even stood up against his party when they are wrong, and he is too inexperienced, (still wet behind the ears) and he will have a fog of advisors like Franklin Raines giving him bad advice and clouding his ability to make a good decision. Notice Obama changing his tune on drilling, and many of other issues. McCain knows the issues and what needs to be done to fix them.

• 17. Patrick  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  What we SHOULD do is at minimum go back to the old bankruptcy law, or better yet, establish a 6 mo. period where anyone can walk away from the mortgage and it is only on your credit for say 2 years… a slight penalty but nothing that ruins your life… we’d see a huge, and immediate, drop in home prices back to sustainable levels rather than a long drawn out drop to sustainable levels… That might kill a few banks/investors stupid enough to buy/give out those mortgages for million-dollar McMansions but most people would be much better off. and it doesn’t screw over renters/savers like the McCain plan.

• 18. Talking Points Jr.  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  Wow Mark, it seems you just admitted you fell off the hay wagon on the way into town and all the city bright lights dazzled you.

  B.S. You knew what you were doing and risking.

  I’m middle class. When I bought my house I had the option of choosing a 30 y fixed or going with an ARM. When I bought years ago, the rate was 7.75. Not great, not bad. Or I could gamble and go with an ARM. Not willing to gamble with my family’s security, I think I wisely chose a fixed.

  The house was not in the newest, fanciest sub-division. It was in an older neighborhood, close to a good school and a park.

  I knew that if the economy went belly up, I would have a decent older home, that may take me 20 years to fix up if I chose to.

  Brass tacks time Marky…you know that what your talking about (walking away) is UNETHICAL. You know it. Your heart knows it, your God knows it.

  Your talking about cheating the system. Period.

  When you buy a car, and you want a newer one, you may have to “eat” the negative you still owe, and put the remaining balance on the new cars loan. You understand this.

  Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Face it boyo…in a ethical world…you’re stuck. No one made you accept the loan terms. You now want me to save you money based on your decisions? Sorry dude.

  Grow up Mark. Reach down to those little bootstraps on your tiny little legs and pull hard.

  Mommy is not going to give you a binky this time.

• 19. Obama08  |  October 8th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  So Mark, you want Socialism to save your sorry ass investment, which means I must forfeit some of my $125,000 in hard cash to you?

  Hell no…..HELL NO!

  I thought you were against “wealth redistribution.”

  I’ll buy your house for $100,000 cash.

  That’s capitalism, my friends.

• 20. phnx  |  October 8th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

  “It is a little silly to claim that it is a “democrat inspired” collapse in the market, as if the dems made you buy a house, made you take out a huge loan, etc., etc.” djp

  It was the Democrats that pushed for “affordable housing loans” from Fannie and Freddie. If you listen to Maxine Water speak, she said that Fannie and Freddie did an excellent job of meeting their mandate. What was that mandate?? Was is a financial mandate? NO!! It was ensuring that 50% of the loans went to low income minorities. In that they were wildly successful. How were they able to achieve that? By eliminating income requirements and down payments so that people who couldn’t afford houses were qualified anyway, without having to put one dime into the house. If you have no investment in something what is your incentive to keep it, especially if it devalues?

  This turkey falls right at the feet of Democrat congresspukes who pandered to their poor constituents for their votes.

  The irony in all of this is that Obama is successfully laying the blame on the Bush Administration, and no one in the media is questioning that.

• 21. Patrick  |  October 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  I don’t agree AT ALL that it is unethical to walk-away… It is a personal financial decision. Noone forced Mark to buy that home, but noone forced his bank to give him a mortgage he couldn’t afford (or at least a mortgage that was far higher than was justified for a home by any reasonable standard). I have little sympathy for either of them, and if Mark walks away and leaves the bank on the hook for their stupid decision, I say more power to him (and yes then I may approach the bank with my $150,000 cash and offer to take their worthless property off their books…)

• 22. OhioOrrin  |  October 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  IndyMac/FDIC have a plan, Mark -

  IndyMac’s Fast-Track Mortgage Modification Program
  It not only can stave off foreclosures but also provide a blueprint for how the industry can tackle troubled home loans

  http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_42/b4104000057649.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

• 23. Talking Points Jr.  |  October 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  How incredibly laughable. This poster is going to blame the mortgage debacle on minority loans?

  An asinine statement unto itself.

  So the millions of people in Marky’s income range, who purchased homes way over their head, hoping to “cash in” on the housing market, (instead of buying a home to live in for awhile-you know, like those minorities), speculated, lost, and now want Mommy to bail them out don’t count?

  I don’t think I bumped my head falling off the hay wagon, but I bet more of homes lost to foreclosure, are the one’s like Mark, who gambled and took ARM’s, and now cannot make the payment.

  They knew the market would dictate the ARM rates and took that chance.

  Some of us knew that Bush’s economic policies were rubbish. We took measures to insure at a minimum the roof over our heads would be somewhat secure.

  ssshhhhhhh….let’s not talk about the hedge funds, or swapping shady monetary mechanics…let’s blame it on the minority loans…

  Spare me B.S.

  Answer me oh Mark…how do you think your “walking away” and letting go of a loan you AGREED too will sit with your God, ethically speaking.

  Pray the rosary, and get back to me.

• 24. Eric T  |  October 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  Patrick-

  When property values fall, the money your city or town collects in taxes will soon fall as well.
  Renters don’t pay a property tax- My property tax mostly goes to the schools, I don’t even have kids.
  With housing values falling, the tax accessor can’t keep raising taxes on homes that are losing value.
  Cities big and small are going to have less funds to work with. Maybe renters should be paying a school tax. We got a school choice program where Detroit kids, come across county and city lines into our schools. So instead of me funding that with my property tax money, why don’t they tax renters in their own district so they can pay for their own schools.

  McCain is right, they need to stabilize the housing market. The Government buying up homes or land to stabilize the market, is a better idea than allowing foreign banks to come in and buy them. The market is flooded with homes for sale, the government buying them removes some of the over supply of homes. That move in itself, could stop the values from further decline.

• 25. Talking Points Jr.  |  October 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  See here’s the difference between walking the walk and talking the talk.

  I know that walking and letting the house go into foreclosure, while I still have the income to make the payment, is cheating and working the system.

  I will not do that, because if everybody does that (like Mark is proposing he does) the system will obviously not work.

  Rules are rules, ethics are ethics. Morals are morals.

  You do not choose when they apply or don’t.

  This completes the Bush era of “I’ve got mine, mine, mine, mine, mine. You get out of my way.

  Your proposed behavior does not surprise me.

  I knew you had no ethics to begin with.

• 26. Patrick  |  October 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

  Eric, of course renters pay property tax - not directly, but the owner surely factors in all their costs when they rent out the home. Apartments pay property taxes too.

  What does the government do with all the homes they buy? Knock them down? You can’t stabilize prices at a level above what people can pay for them. Which is about 3-5 times median income for whatever area you live in. It sucks that values dropping hurt Mark, and hurts the tax base of the city, but just telling people that the home is worth $400,000, just because that’s what Mark happened to pay for it, when there is NO ONE willing to pay that, doesn’t make sense.

• 27. Jim Oliver  |  October 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  Mark, I don’t get it…you are accumulating equity just fine…you will soon own 100% of your house, which is only worthless in 2008. In a few years the market will bounce back up and you can sell your house at a profit.

  Why do you expect the bank to cut you a sweetheart deal? Just because you can? Using a threat of default to try to screw over the bank may be good capitalism but it sure aint ethical.

  Your mortgage payments haven’t changed, you knew what they would be ahead of time…what is the deal here, did you lose your job? If so, just get a minimum wage job…there are still plenty of those. I’m sure you can make your mortgage payments on a $6.85/hr job, no problem.

• 28. Parker  |  October 8th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

  Kahn replies to my post by spewing the word “Idiot” and dares me to insult him back.

  No need to. You made your point.

• 29. Eric T  |  October 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

  In the city of detroit, their are houses so old and unsafe, that they do need to be knocked down, old factories, shops, schools, churches. When The structure of the building is falling down, the only value is the land. If the government buys them and tears down the old eyesores, the area looks nicer for one thing, people are put to work doing the demolition and recycling materials that can be salvaged. And they take some of the supply of land off the market for a while. I think this would bring values up in many cities.

• 30. OhioOrrin  |  October 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  how ya like this NAFTA economy now ?

  what a bunch of f’ing morons we are!

  we get the lying ba$tard scoundrels we deserve…cause all we want ‘em to do is lie 2 us real good eh?

  “yea boyz, gather ’round - elect me & I’ll buy all yer worthless paper I will, yea”

• 31. blocksofgranite  |  October 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  I’m a bit confused. I would have thought liberals would have loved this idea of taking from the “better off” taxpayers and giving to the poor, less fortunate. 2. RealConservative | October 8th, 2008 at 10:05 am

  McCain must be feeling the financial squeeze from carring his 8 homes. Sounds like someone with vacation homes came up with this idea.

• 32. Canuckguy  |  October 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  Canadian Observer: “Everything in Mark’s world was bright & rosy and the Bush economy was as strong as the rock of Gibraltar.”

  Ah, classic ’schadenfreude’. CO, you certainly did not take long to jump in to slip the shiv between Mark’s ribs. By now, he looks like a pincushion what with all the barbs sticking out of him. People, please, let’s have order, stand in line patiently and wait to stick it to Mark.

  Yeah, the US economy is really ‘humming’ now Mark. Remember that phrase you have used in the past? “Just a humming along” (hmmm, methinks Mark is shellshocked from the almost total lack of sympathy.

• 33. Kahn  |  October 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

  Thanks Parker - you replied with an insult and absolutely no substance at all.

  Just like Obama would.

  Zeig Heil! Heil Obama!

• 34. Nate  |  October 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

  “house is actually worthless”

  does it protect you from the elements? does it have furniture in it that you can sit on, sleep on, be entertained with? does it have a kitchen where you can keep and prepare food? does it have a bathroom or two so you don’t have to use an outhouse or trench? does it have storage for all your accumulations? does it have a tv, phone, stereo, cable, electrical connections, etc.?

  really, worthless?

• 35. extramedium  |  October 8th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

  Mark,

  I’m sorry to hear about your troubles but you clearly have a tough sell here if you are looking for sympathy or an easy way out. It sounds like you put your family at risk by buying more house than you could afford, with something other than the tried and true, conservative 30-year fixed mortgage. I don’t think you can claim you were ignorant or duped since you are a finance professional yourself (I think).

  You made a risky bet and you lost. You can walk away, but I think you’ll sooner opt to preserve your credit, your honor and your reputation.

  I think John McCain had some straight talk on this back in March when he said “I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers”.

  Seems like a whole lot of flip-flopping going on in the straight talk express right about now.

• 36. Thrower  |  October 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  I am in similar circumstances to Mark’s with a home in San Diego County. I paid $377k for it in 2005 and it is worth maybe $230k today. My guess is that it is on the way to $150k and I still owe $275k on it. I too am stuck with it and won’t have a dime of equity again until at least 2018.

  Having said that, nobody put a gun to my head and forced me to sign escrow papers. I would be taking a victory lap today if it was worth $450k and I would not be offering to share the gain with anyone. Mark and I share the experience of making a poor decision, and from what I sense, we both retain the ability to pay the folks who lent us the money. We pledged to do that and lenders trusted that our word meant something. End of the story.

  Everyone in this country who owns a home should be rooting for this free fall in housing values to end. In fact, the entire economy rests on that happening. But I think there is only one narrow sector in which the government assistance should be considered. That is in cases where an adjustable rate mortgage has morphed into usury, and the homeowner has the ability to pay a reasonable interest rate. In no case do I think the lowered value of the property should be a factor. Rewrite the terms and pay the amount borrowed.

• 37. Eric T  |  October 8th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

  OhioOrrin-”how ya like this NAFTA economy now ?”

  I don’t like it at all, we get to work for less, less benifits, pensions eliminated, the only people that benefit are the corporate officers that get to live like royalty and vote to pay themselves millions, for outsourcing jobs and running there companies in the ground.

  Globalism sucks, but you need some degree of it for the abilty to have trade. Whether it is oil, food, manufactured goods.

  When Ron Paul talked about a gold standard, and sound money, it makes alot of sense.

  When it comes to banking, real estate and some other issues. There is no need for Globalism. If the government is Buying up real estate, they have something that has value and always will have some value, unlike junk paper, that can go from $1 a share to .0001 a share and eventually zero a share.

  If a city needs money from the federal government it could trade some of there vacant land, unused industrial land or old homes. The city could buy it back later, if it has competant leadership that can run the city at a profit and generate money. It would take some of the vacant homes and land off the market, it would put a floor price for what is available.

• 38. Fool Disclosure  |  October 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

  Despite having worked all my life and scrimped and saved. Despite having a spotless credit record. Despite making more money than both of my parents combined (who were able to buy and sell three or four homes in their lifetime). Despite all this, I have never been able to afford a home and have had to live in crappy rentals.

  No doubt I will now be called upon to shell out the taxes to rescue you from your terrible predicament.

  Get a real job, hippie.

• 39. Eric T  |  October 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

  Fool disclosure-

  Renters don’t pay the school tax, homeowners and landowners do. If they dragged out the terms of the mortgage from 30 yrs ro 40, 50, or 60. How would that require a new tax that effects you. The Bank would get paid, people would get to stay in their homes.

  You will probably never see better deals on homes than right now, If you got good credit, you should be able to get alot of house for your money right now. First time buyers can sometimes get in with no money down.

  If my credit was better I’d buy another one to rent out.

• 40. Mark Noonan  |  October 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

  You guys aren’t getting the point, so perhaps I didn’t explain it well:

  A huge number of Americans didn’t buy houses on speculation - I bought this house because I had to move my father in with me in order to care for him and so I needed a bigger house. We didn’t buy it no money down but, instead, put a bit more than 10% down and then, after that, put about 20k more into improvements of the property. We’re not past due on our mortgage payments and don’t look to be so in the future, unless I were to lose my job or some such.

  Meanwhile, though, I’m out of the housing market and my house can’t be sold for enough to even cover the mortgage - its a dead weight on the economy, and so are a large number of other houses…not the houses of twits who bought in the expectation that it’d keep going up for ever, but people who just bought houses in 2005 and 2006 and have now watched not just their equity disappear, but their home value drop far below the mortgage value. In terms of pure logic, the smart thing for me to do is to bag it - to dump this house and buy up a much better one at a knockdown price and just allow this one to be tossed on the pile of foreclosed houses, thus dragging down the housing market even further. You think I’m the only person this has occurred to? Not at all - and there will be a stampede of people dumping their houses for cheaper housing over the next year unless something is done about it. You can call it wrong or what have you - but people will do what is advantageous to them.

  McCain realizes this - realizes, that is, that something must be done for those who have no incentive to keep up their mortgage payments when cheaper houses and much lower mortgage payments beckon, and the hit to a person’s credit rating really only lasts for three years. I don’t know the details of McCain’s plan - and he might not, either; but unlike Obama and even quite a lot of Republicans, McCain realizes that something has to be done. My preferred choice is the suggestion I made to the bank - I owe X amount of dollars and I’m paying Y amount of monthly mortgage…what harm is there in lowering the monthly mortgage payment? Not asking for debt forgiveness, not asking for the taxpayers to shell out a dime…just figure that we need to re-incentivise people to stay in their homes which they can afford, but which have lost massive amounts of value. Lower the mortgage payment and while I won’t build up equity for 10 years, I can at least build up savings - which is just as good, especially as I can take the savings and dump them into the 401k to take advantage of the bargain prices of stocks these days.

  Its either do something, or see the housing problem become even worse. You pick, boys and girls.

  CO,

  Uh, this problem was brought to us by the Democrats, not President Bush - but, thanks for playing.

  Fool,

  Envy and bitterness don’t get anyone anywhere. I’ve lost $40,000 I put down on this house…how much have you saved up for your prospective home and how would you feel if it vanished in puff of leftist smoke? As for me, its only money - I’ve got my health and my family and God is with me.

  Thrower,

  Ditto.

• 41. Faceplant  |  October 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  “In this alone - the perception to see where the real problem lies - we can see McCain’s manifest superiority over Obama as a prospective Chief Executive.”

  Absolutely. What great vision McCain has. And like you, I think this plan was a fantastic idea by Senator McCain.

  But I keep feeling like I’ve heard McCain talk about this plan before…………….

  “For example, we should consider giving the government the authority to purchase mortgages directly instead of simply purchasing mortgage- backed securities. In the past, such an approach has allowed taxpayers to profit as the housing market recovered. This is not simply a question of looking out for homeowners; it’s doubtful that the economy as a whole can recover without the restoration of our housing sector, including a rebound in the home values that have suffered dramatically in recent months.”

  And this…

  “We also must do more than this rescue package does to help homeowners stay in their homes. I will continue to advocate bankruptcy reforms to help families stay in their homes and encourage Treasury to study the option of buying individual mortgages like we did successfully in the 1930s,”

  Oh, yeah, that wasn’t John McCain. That was Barack Obama on Sept. 23rd 2008, and Oct. 1st 2008.

  Apparently your candidate has decided he can’t win without stealing ideas from his opponent.

• 42. phnx  |  October 8th, 2008 at 8:50 pm

  talking points jr you are obviously too dense to connect the dots, let me help you.

  Increase in housing values have historically tracked along with inflation. This changed when the Fannie and Freddie changed the requirements to get a loan in order to ensure that their mandate of 50% minority loans was achieved. Once they permitted 100% loans, and loosened the income requirements so that low income buyers could qualify, they also opened the flood gates for speculators as well. They had to offer the same terms to everyone or else be accused of discrimination. The easy money, with low or no qualification thresholds, stimulated the demand for housing across the board, especially in high growth areas like Las Vegas, Florida and So. Cal. The increased demand increased prices at a much higher rate than inflation, People like Mark, and Thrower, and others who purchased housing, not for speculation, but for their own use, got caught in the price bubble created by the artificially increased demand, due to easy credit.

  Once the bubble burst, low income buyers as well as speculators could easily walk away from their houses, because they had no investment in the houses. Default by these buyers accelerated the financial crisis by increasing available inventory and killing demand. As a consequence home values plummetted.

  It is not so easy for the average home buyer who, like Mark and Thrower, put 10% or 20% down on the house out of their own pockets. These are the folks that were really screwed by the circumstances beyond their control.

  Circle back…it all started when the Dems in congress mandated Fannie and Freddie to make 50% of their loans to low income minorities. In order to achieve the mandate Fannie and Freddie had to loosen credit for EVERYBODY.

• 43. Eric T  |  October 8th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

  The McCain plan and the Federal government could easily work with National Banks to adjust payments and taxes, and then bring them in line with the current market value. This is a great plan!

  Global Megabanks and multinational corporations might see it as, not adhering to market principals or think there banks are being forced to lose money ect.. and make a big fuss about it. If it is National Banks or local banks, the Fed can work with the local banks and it is that simple. If it is a international conglomerate it is a tangled up mess, every detail will be world news and politicized. If our government needs to make some market adjustments to protect the homeowners investments, help folks stay in their homes and keep the economy cruising along. That is the kind of President we need.

• 44. smokey  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

  Dems Prevented Fannie Regulation

  Every American should watch the youtube clip on the Fannie Mae hearings from 2004. If you do you will be as outraged as I am.
  4 years ago this could have been addressed and the Democrats stand up one after another to protect Fannie while the Republicans struggled mightily to fix the problem. Perhaps the fact that Franklin Roosevelt created it and Lyndon Johnson privatized it made it difficult for the Democrats to tighten regulation on it but in the end the Democrats stalling in 2004 and their recent prevention in the past two years of George Bush’s efforts to get them to tighten controls on Fannie and Freddie may have generated another Depression.

  At least we know who to blame and there is no hiding from the facts.

• 45. Sidney Lanier  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

  Live by the sword, die by the sword. It’s a free market, sucka. Nobody made you do anything.

• 46. phnx  |  October 8th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

  How many of you on the left right and center were aware of, and considered, the CRA, Derivatives, Credit Default Swaps, and how they affected the market and the value of your home before you bought?

  I venture to say not one of you.
  I know that I didn’t.

• 47. Jeremiah  |  October 8th, 2008 at 11:08 pm

  Dems Prevented Fannie Regulation

  Yes, because they were working with Fannie and Freddie … One of the lead criminals is the well known homosexual Senator Frank … as the following story points out …

  http://americannonsense.com/?p=14813

• 48. Jeremiah  |  October 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

  Dems Prevented Fannie Regulation

  Yes, b/c the democrats were working with Fannie and Freddie to bring the system down. One of the lead criminals is the well-known homosexual Senator Frank … as the following story points out …

  http://americannonsense.com/?p=14813

• 49. bill powers  |  October 8th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

  Mark,
  It sounds like you are caught in consumerism.
  My wife and I bought our house a few years to put a roof over our heads. We paid a fair market value and honestly I could care less what its market value is today. We will raise our children in the house and we will someday die in this house.
  Yes..we raise 3 kids and live in a 1650 sq ft house. Its small.. But we love it. Once gain we could care less about the market value of the house.

  Who cares if you cant sell your house. You walk away from your house and you are a complete hypocrit.
  You are so blinded by your consumer greed and you are mad because you are ‘left out of the housing market’

  You have a roof over your head and you have a loving family. Stop complaining about the value of your house.

  Have you noticed none of your neocon friends have come to defend you? There is a reason…

• 50. bagni  |  October 9th, 2008 at 12:19 am

  markruptcy
  ‘in a puff of leftist smoke”
  you are killing us cosmic ones with the humor….

  cmon earthling
  accept some personal responsibility
  like w would want you to
  you willingly made a bad buy
  stick with it
  muscle thru it
  spacecowboy up

• 51. kjstrouble  |  October 9th, 2008 at 12:26 am

  Mark,

  Sorry you ended up on the wrong side of the mortgage/home value slide. So far I seem to be on the right side - but then living in Omaha means I am not subject to the outrageous pricing that the coasts and other areas have seen. I say so far, because if the slide continues it will eventually hit areas like Omaha.

• 52. bozo  |  October 9th, 2008 at 12:57 am

  Free market hypocrites! Are you high? “Save me, King George, I’m falling and I can’t get up.”

  Go change your diapers.

• 53. Mark Noonan  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:02 am

  bagni,

  A bad buy? In a metro area gaining 6,000 new residents per month? Nope, not a bad buy - I took into consideration the bubble bursting and figured I’d temporarily lose 10% or so of the value of the house…I didn’t realize just how badly the Democrats and their banking cronies had screwed the pooch.

• 54. Mark Noonan  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:04 am

  bill,

  Yeaaaah…thanks for that. I mean, there was no consideration at all in what I’ve said over the past few months about the dangers of consumerism and how the primary culprits here can be found in our bathroom mirrors…I’m sure glad someone as smart as you came along to set me straight.

• 55. Mark Noonan  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:10 am

  phnx,

  I think we have a conceptual problem here on the left, plus an unreasonable hatred of me and anyone else who is a Republican - perhaps I should remind them how many folks in the blue States have also caught it in the shorts?

  In order to shore up the housing market and prevent what will become a flood of abandoned homes, the people who have seen their home values eaten up by the financial meltdown need an incentive to hang in there - McCain has come up with an idea, and I think it has merit and is worth looking into…Obama, on the other hand, wants to play a class warfare card which won’t help homeowners, won’t punish the rich (’cause the rich - the real rich - have insulated themselves from such things, and a largely big Democratic donors) and, in the end, will just make things worse.

  We’ve got an extraordinary circumstance here, and we have to think outside the box in order to figure out how to get from crisis to stability. Anyone has a better idea, and I’m all ears.

• 56. Nate  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:14 am

  gee mark, you just want something for nothing. guess that’s like most of the conserv repubs. the left isn’t responsible for this, greedy wall street is (previously mentioned swaps, etc.)

  as other posters and i have pointed out you have a home — there are many who don’t. of course it has value as it does what it is meant to do for you and your family. sounds like you were trying to use it as an investment and that’s luck of the draw — as are 401s, 403s, stocks, mutual funds, etc.

  if you plan to live in the house and use it for that then you are in fine shape as you have a place where you can continue to live.

  talk about whiny….

• 57. Mark Noonan  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am

  kj,

  Its just a thing - doesn’t really bother me and, in fact, its a bit of a joke around the Noonan household…but for a lot of other people, it will become a grand opportunity to ditch their over-mortgaged properties and pick up houses at fire-sale prices. I don’t know if anyone noticed in my live-blogging last night, but I did get a call from a home builder begging me to buy a house from them…betcha that 315k house they have for sale - four bedrooms including two master suites, three car garage, massive decorative upgrades and builder pays closing costs - can be had for 250k. I buy it and the builder is happy ’cause he’s at least sold a house for more than the cost of building it, I’m happy because I’ve got a nicer house for vastly less money which will start to build equity in a year or two rather than ten - and the rest of the country eats it as another house hits the market in repo status and thus drags the market down even further…

  We need a dose of common sense here - and our friends on the left are immune to such, it would seem.

• 58. Mark Noonan  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:17 am

  Nate,

  I was going to say something a bit nasty to you, but its not your fault that you happened to be the most recent obtuse lefty to comment here.

  Just go away - unless you actually want to consider what I’ve said and then comment on that.

• 59. brettmicheals  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:25 am

  Mark,
  A flood of abandoned homes? Why would people leave a house they own? Im trying to figure out why YOU are so caught up in the market value of your house. Why does it matter? Are you wanting to sell your house and move somewhere else?

  If you dont…then it shouldn’t matter what he market value is.

  Im sure our house has lost some value. But honestly…why does it matter? We do not want to move. Its the house we are raising our children in.

  I could see if job circumstances take you elsewhere…but wow…if you walk away from your house JUST because the market value has fallen…what does that say about you? Further…what does that say about others that do the same thing?

  Man..even in your post #54…your consumerism is shining through. All you care about is having a nicer house for less money? Walking away from a current obligation..just so you can get ahead in the housing market?

  It sounds like you are treating your house as an investment vehicle. If that is the case..then you made a poor investment and quite frankly…the government has no business meddling when YOU have made a bad investment.

  We treat our house as a home to grow old in. The only thing we care about is paying off the mortgage so we own it free and clear before we retire.

  I have to admit, I am pretty shocked by this thread.

• 60. Jeremiah  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:44 am

  Dems Prevented Fannie Regulation

  Yes. Not only did they prevent regulation, but they were working with Fannie to crash our economy. One of the lead criminals is the well known homosexual Senator Frank as this article points out…

  http://americannonsense.com/?p=14813

• 61. Jeremiah  |  October 9th, 2008 at 1:59 am

  Dems Prevented Fannie Regulation

  Smokey,

  Yes, not only have Democrats prevented regulation, but they’ve worked together on bringing the economy down … One criminal homosexual Senator Frank who is tied with Herb Moses a senior executive of Fannie Mae and who wrote up a lot of these home loans and mortgages.

  He needs put in prison along with the other criminals such as Barack Obama.

• 62. extramedium  |  October 9th, 2008 at 3:56 am

  Practically speaking, I don’t know how Mark or anyone else thinks they can walk away from their current house and just buy another cheaper one, unless you have a lot of free cash on hand. I think the best you could do is walk away and rent.

  Are banks really going to allow you to take another mortgage when you are foundering under the current one? And if you do allow a foreclosure, you’ll be out of the mortgage game for some time - that mark is on your record for seven years and loans for sub-prime borrowers will be far scarcer that we’ve seen in some time.

• 63. CanadianObserver  |  October 9th, 2008 at 8:51 am

  57. Jeremiah | October 9th, 2008 at 1:59 am
  —————————————-

  After you’ve jailed the Democratic Party, Jeremiah, and perhaps have carried out a little capital punishment against Senator Frank and others, do you think you could then spare some time to help Mark solve his housing problem.

  I believe you have a direct line to the Almighty and since Mark, a tried and true Christian, is in dire need of assistance, perhaps you could intervene on his behalf.

  Lend a helping hand to a fellow believer, Jeremiah.

• 64. Singularity  |  October 9th, 2008 at 11:11 am

  A) Barney Frank is a member of the House, not a Senator.

  B) I understand that Mark is unhappy about having to wait to regain equity in his home, but in the end, as long as he wasn’t looking at this as a short-term investment property, I’m not sure how he has any leg to stand on here. He agreed to pay the loan and presumably signed a contract to do so. So legally, morally, ethically, as long as he has the ability to pay on the terms to which he agreed, he is obligated to pay. Just because the bad investment you made is paid off over a long period of time doesn’t change the fact that you made the bad investment. If you had paid 100% cash at the height of the bubble and the price immediately dropped, you wouldn’t be talking about walking away from your asset.

  c) I see a lot of people saying that the Democrats required Fannie and Freddie to make 50% of their loans to low income minorities. Can someone please cite the specific act passed by a Democratic majority congress that created this requirement? Thanks in advance.

• 65. bagni  |  October 9th, 2008 at 11:26 am

  markie
  your explanation
  makes you sound like one of those evil investment bankers……ha
  black hole bottom line?
  the deep space democrats made a bad law with redlining
  but it took the radarian repubs to really exploit the heck out of it for personal planetary gain
  you included….your plan just didn’t work
  maybe bad timing?

• 66. Robert  |  October 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

  Mark,

  How much did you pay for your house? If I read you correctly, you must have paid at least $200k - $300K for it. I know that by Vegas standards that is pretty reasonable, but VERY few people I know can even come close to owning a 2 or 3 hundred thousand dollar house.

  Does it suck that you lost so much - Yes. Do I feel bad for you - Yes. But try living in a broken down trailer in the middle of nowhere with no guarantee that you would have heat in the winter cause the furnace always broke down or in danger of the water pump quitting or the electric being shut off. That is how I grew up, Mark. And even though I worked hard to get my Master’s degree, I still only live in a small half of a duplex in a rural area that I rent. It is many years old, but still in okay shape and I have a great landlord.

  The point here is that you have a house - a very nice house from the sound of it. Did you work for it - sure. But your house is probably nicer than the houses of almost anyone I know in my area of Pennsylvania. And THEY worked hard for their houses too. And guess what? A few of my friends who do own are worried that they might lose their house too. This crisis hit EVERYONE. However, Marky boy, you are still in a MUCH better position than a lot of people.

  You can sell your house for jack squat and STILL have enough to buy two or three houses of the type that many people I know have.

  Why not skimp on some things, Mark? Why not give up the Hummer and walk to work like some people I know. Why not buy a $2000 mobile home like the one I grew up in and worry that your family may not have heat. Why not trade in your swimming pool for an electric blanket?

  Guess what, Mark - contrary to what you seem to think, not all Liberals and Democrats are elitists intellectual richies. Some Democrats are DIRT POOR!!! Some Liberals have lived harder than you could ever dream of living.

  Liberals are NOT to blame for all of this. Greedy people of BOTH sides of the isle are. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!

  STOP BLAMING LIBERALS FOR EVERYTHING!!!!

  Some of us have lived far more poor than you in your cushy dream house in Vegas could ever understand. All Liberals are NOT “wrong all the time and about everything.” Some of us have dealt with things that you could never even imagine, and have gained wisdom to carry on and do better for ourselves than our parents did. But even now we struggle.

  Sarah Palin does not represent “Main Street.” Someone like a steelworker (Liberal Democrat millhunky) from Pennsylvania who lost their job in the mill when they shut down and could barely scape up enough to feed his family - that is “Main Street,” Mark.

  Maybe if you decided to shop at Salvation Army and Goodwill like I do (I have money to go elsewhere but choose to shop at these stores) you might have a better time of it.

  If you live more frugally, you might find out how it feels to be poor, but smart about how you spend your money.

  And maybe you will learn to live with a more modest house, or appreciate the one you have, even if the market has screwed you. Oh, and by the way, how is that “stable” economy you were talking about a while back going?

  STOP BLAMING LIBERALS!!!

  GREED from ALL sides put EVERYONE in this mess. Maybe it hurts you now because you now understand what it is like to be Joe Average, maybe now you understand a little about poverty.

• 67. lilly06  |  October 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

  The world financial markets are suffering everyday. The fact is Bush’s 700 billion dollar bail out (including McCain’s 300 billion plans) really equates to the taxpayer aka the ones who had no ownership in making poor credit risk decisions paying for the loans used to attain these loans and the interest on it.

  The fact that the Republican conservative camp bows into what is really corporate socialism is a joke. Its been a hard line of not helping the poor man however in the face of an election McCain will disown the hard line and take up a short term solution that will lead to huge taxes in the future.

  Fact is, McCain and Obama cannot provide a concise plan till one of them is voted in to really look at the mess the Bush administration has made of America’s books for the past 8 years. If Bush hadn’t wasted so much money on Iraq, maybe there would have been some actual surplus cash to help with this crisis rather than the huge debt that is currently in place.

  The fact is that a Republican has been in the white house for the past 8 years and look at the mess he has made. Its time for a change. Time to vote for Obama.

• 68. Faceplant  |  October 9th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  “Every American should watch the youtube clip on the Fannie Mae hearings from 2004. If you do you will be as outraged as I am.”

  And who, again, was in control of the congressional agenda in 2004?

  Here’s a hint, it wasn’t the democrats.

• 69. Talking Points Jr.  |  October 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  Hey Mark,

  It’s obvious you don’t give a rat’s patooty about ethics. Here’s some other things you can do.

  …you can scratch your cars paint job with a nail or a key, and file an insurance claim, presto! New paint job baby.

  …you can kick down your fence in a minor windstorm and say the “wind” blew sections of it down, presto! New fence baby.

  …you can loosen the nut retainer on the hot water side of the supply under your sink and let it leak overnight. In the morning, all the damage created the night before…? Insurance claim, presto! New kitchen flooring baby.

  Go for it. To hell with ethics, the car needed a new paint job, the fence repaired, and the wife’s been moaning about redoing the lino in the kitchen too long. All that would be a serious drain on your pocket book.

  Not this way. Here’s your example…

  You can call it wrong or what have you - but people will do what is advantageous to them.

  Most of us would call it wrong. Not here on blogs for Victory!

  besides…

  Its just a thing - doesn’t really bother me and, in fact, its a bit of a joke around the Noonan household…but for a lot of other people, it will become a grand opportunity to ditch their over-mortgaged properties and pick up houses at fire-sale prices.

  Yep, your quite a pious example of the common man.

  Hey, did you pray the rosary yet? Did God say it was OK?

  You betcha. Doggone it.

• 70. Fool Disclosure  |  October 9th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  There’s a whole generation of working people out there — we’ll call them the Statistical Middle Class — that not only don’t have homes, but don’t have any furniture to sit on or pictures to hang up in their rentals.

  For me, personally, I’m richer than most of my friends. I have a steady job with a good income. To celebrate this, last year I leased my very first automobile and am learning how to drive it. I am 44 years old and well above the Statistical Middle Class.

  Someday, one of your homes may drift into my price range and I’ll jump on it. After over twenty years of decrepit rentals, I won’t care a whit about equity.

• 71. Eric T  |  October 9th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

  Fool disclosure- there are some parts of renting that I liked and make me wish I was still renting, being tied down to a home mortgage that lost 40% of it value, is like being trapped in a cage. If your gonna buy, get what you really want, in the area you like. Don’t settle for something that isn’t what you really want because it is a little cheaper. Because you will be married to the mortgage payment, and you won’t be able to pick up and leave easily.

  “John McCain speaking to the actual concerns of those affected in their personal lives by the financial crisis - those who have seen their home values collapse while keeping up their home payments.”

  When I listened to the debate, that part grabbed my attention. My father’s house is getting foreclosed on. My houses value has dropped 40%. You look at the stock market today and peoples retirements are getting wipe-out. The next president is going to have alot of problems to deal with the minute he hits the office.

  Obama did not mention any plans on how he is going to attempt to deal with home values crashing. Or how cities are going to deal with less tax revenue. Teachers, city workers alot of people that depend on that revenue, are going to have to take painful concessions, If values keep falling. McCain at least addressed the issue, and threw out some of his ideas for fixing it.

• 72. What?  |  October 9th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

  Fool Disclosure,
  It sounds like you deserve that car and a house. I hope you get it.

  Mark,
  I’m sorry about your house. I am also sorry this has not made you reconsider your die-hard faith in your party. Like it or not, this belongs as much to your party as it does to the Democrats.

  I can’t help but think that if Obama proposed McCain’s plan you would be denouncing it as socialism.