Do you think it would have passed if it had included provisions to help the Average Joe w/ foreclosures/renegotiate their mortgage rate?
I thought that was a valid thing to include - cap gains taxes etc. seemed like politics.
It was to amend the Bankruptcy law so judges could modify mortgages on primary residences only. This way if the Bank servicer doesn't reach an agreement (which 8 out 10 fail to do) it would have to go before a judge in the case of a B/K. I was always against it in the past, as were many conservatives, but was for it if there was going to be a bailout. My rationale in the past was that judges didn't have the ability to determine how much it would affect the security, but the truth is it might stop the hemorrhaging. Then a better gauge of what the true worth of the assets might be ascertained for those who participate in the bailout. The reality is property values will continue falling, and Banks do not want to be in the business of managing the properties, paying taxes and common charges etc. If someone is paying at least something in the meantime, it will result in less losses. I think they should have included in the modifications something to the effect that if someone modifies their mortgage, stays in the house XYZ amount of time, and the value appreciates above the original loan amount, the money has to be given back to the government. But that could be done without a bailout, so to answer your question Scooterbuggy, I do not know if it would helped enough. It's all perception of the markets and liquidity and helping homeowners is just a small part of the equation.
Did anyone understand the rationale for the slushy fund? Personally, I didn't get it. I mean pandering to these agencies is one thing, but to the tune of 20% of any potential profits?
