Just saw a HIllary Ad here in AZ...it stated in bold lettering that she intends to

[AzDar]

"Stop all foreclosures, and freeze interest rates".

Is this possible?

Is this advisable?

Anyone know?:shrug:

[Angela Shelley]

1. Now that´s funny!

Answer 1: No

Answer 2: No

[Thrill]

2. Of course not. But that hasn't stopped Hillary before

[AzDar]

14. Frankly, I haven't yet decided whom I'll be supporting tomorrow, but

the ad sort of took me by surprise.
This state is one of the hardest hit by the sub-prime meltdown, and even IF these things were possible, we're talking a tremendously long time before she could (conceivably) implement these ideas.
Odd.

[MADem]

3. Say, why don't you go to her website and find that ad for us, OK?

Or check YOUTUBE--the ads are always there.

That will help us see what you saw, and that way we can comment on it.

[FormerDittoHead]

4. I'm thinking I'll be voting for her, but I would look at the small printing on the bottom...

Like those little asterisks and things...

[FormerDittoHead]

26. OK. I saw the ad this afternoon. Guess what? IT DOESN'T FUCKING SAY THAT.

There is a GRAND CANYON DEEP DIFFERENCE between:

>"Stop all foreclosures..."

and what it REALLY SAYS:

"Stop foreclosures..."

I'm sure you'll see it again...

And there's no doubt that the President can suggest legislation and enact on a freeze on SOME interest rates and SOME foreclosures...

The ad doesn't say "ALL"...

I *WILL* agree that it IMPLIES "ALL" but this is a CAMPAIGN AD, for crying out loud...

[Azathoth]

5. She will also turn water into wine and leap tall mountains in a single bound

Trust her. Just give her the White House and she'll take care of everything.

[BlackVelvet04]

7. Which we know is a lie because Obama is he second coming. n/t

[Azathoth]

10. Perhaps, but he ain't running ads claiming that he is n/t

[elixir]

29. Camelot, Change, Hope, JFK, MLK, RFK

[scheming daemons]

6. Freezing interest rates would be an economically disastrous move...

...shows she knows little about the economy.

[joshcryer]

19. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Please explain how freezing the interest rates would be disasterous to the market. Lower interest rates means at least the loans can be paid back or paid down, otherwise people will simply forclose and the holders won't like that one bit.

Houses are valued more than they're worth. By 50% in some cases. Housing prices have not grown with inflation, they've made inflation look like a joke. And it's all because of these insane investments in people who simply could not afford to pay these loans at high interest rates.

[MyNameGoesHere]

22. Well neither did Bill and how did that work out for you? n/t

[OzarkDem]

8. Yes and yes

As president, she would have that power.

[thevoiceofreason]

12. Because the strategy worked so well for Nixon

[Barack_America]

13. Can you prove that?

What about the fact that many of these mortgages are now owned by overseas companies? Does she have executive power over them as well?

[Barack_America]

9. I don't know if it's possible...

But several economists have come out and said that it is not advisable.

It's a difficult problem because so many of those mortgages are now owned by overseas companies.

[joshcryer]

18. Well, the value is depreciating, no one wants those loans, so, freezing the interest...

...would at least give the holders a bit of a payback. They'd be happy with it. But it does just prolong the inevitable.

[TexasObserver]

11. Is she going to personally pay everyone's mortgage?

Someone signs a note, and that note gets sold to someone to fund their retirement. The buy it based upon the representation that it guarantees a certain return. Is she going to tell the person owning the paper they can't have what they bargained for? Any such program would have to be voluntary for those holding paper, and likely involve huge incentives by government.

The reality is that Hillary is merely shilling for votes on something she cannot do, and knows she cannot do.

[joshcryer]

16. The paper would be worthless otherwise, they would get depreciated market value.

It's pretty simple how this works. The market has exploded. Houses are "worth" more than they would be were the banks not giving out essentially free loans and selling them to the highest bidder overseas.

You have an option, either that contract is worth something or it is worth a shitload less than you bargianed for. What are you going to chose?

[thereismore]

15. Yea. Stop foreclosures...for a month. Then, all bets are off! nt

[joshcryer]

17. It is possible, it is probably not advisable, because it just prolongs the inevetable.

It's possible that it can be subsidized somehow, but I haven't thought about the numbers of the benefits from doing something like that.

[rucky]

20. Possible - not advisable.

stopping all foreclosures would be bad. REO people know that most of these homes going into foreclosure are in disrepair. The foreclosure process mandates the bank make needed repairs or add an escrow to make the home in saleable condition. Without that, neighborhoods will start blighting fast. Check out what's going on in South Florida right now.

Freeze interest rates. That would make the paper worthless to investors and set a precedent that will make investors shy away from mortgage-backed securities - period. You'll just see loan offerings disappear as a result - which will leave less options for people trying to get into the market or get out of bad loans.

It's overboard.

HUD already has programs and special loans in-place to save people from foreclosure and get out of bad loans. We just need to expand these programs by requiring anybody in default - or close to default - to enter these programs and/or apply for FHA Secure refis.

http://www.hud.gov/foreclosure/index.cfm

[TexasObserver]

24. It's classic demagoguery.

and pretty typical of those who will say and do anything in an attempt to win

[JVS]

21. Hmmm people who overextended their credit get bailed out while people who can't afford health,,,

insurance get their salaries garnished.

[hfojvt]

23. I say yes to both

although the first one would be temporary and the second would only apply to ARMs.

An example is the story I saw on PBS. Or was it CBS? This guy was paying 9% on his mortgage, which is quite steep to begin with, then he was adjusted to 14% which is lunacy and made the home unaffordable. The banks and the economy are much better off without an avalanche of foreclosures. If the family can still make payments at the original interest rate, then their house is not added to an already flooded market which is bringing house prices down. Plus, they do not become homeless, or move into an apartment with rents being pushed up by all the other people foreclosed out of their houses.

[City Lights]

25. She talked about this in the last debate.

CLINTON:

Secondly, I think it's imperative that we approach this mortgage crisis with the seriousness that it is presenting. There are 95,000 homes in foreclosure in California right now. I want a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work out keeping people in their homes instead of having them lose their homes, and I want to freeze interest rates for five years.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/index.html

[jillan]

27. I think she wants to stop the interest rates from raising on those adjustable mortgages,

Alot of people got screwed on their mortgages, and as the rates go up, so do the foreclosures.

If anything, what she wants to do is screw the banks and lending companies for their dishonest practices.

[Didereaux]

28. yes, you can stop foreclosures and force an interest rate reduction...

What is happening is that most sub=primes had interest rate 'time bombs' built in. What is causing the defaults is that the original interest rates(which were higher than good credit rates) around the 9% level would after a year or two jump to 14-15% or even higher. this raised the monthly payment out of reach of the borrower. So what happens is that the gov CAN step in and force a renegotiation of those rates back to lower more realistic values. Some banks are doing that now to save there asses.