Upcoming Foreclosures

How do I determine a reasonable offer on fannie mae foreclosure? I'm just wondering how low can they go? With this fannie mae crisis, is it possible to land an acceptable offer at half the original list price?

Fannie Mae foreclosures and seller contributions? I'm considering putting an offer on a Fannie Mae homepath house and am getting conflicting info about asking for a seller contribution to cover my closing costs and prepaids. I understand that Fannie is exempt from some closing costs normally paid by the seller such as stamps and intangible tax and it falls on the buyer to cover them. My realtor has told me that Fannie can give up to 6% to cover my costs, however, none of the 6% can be put toward the exempted closing costs. I took that to mean I would have to go out of pocket on closing costs even if the 6% could cover everything. Has anyone had any first hand experience dealing with this? Thanks

How Long Does It Take For Fannie Mae To Accept Offer? There were four offers submitted on the Fannie Mae foreclosure. It only took 10 minutes for them to call back and tell everyone to bring their best and highest offer. Now that they all have been submitted how long do we have to wait to hear which one they've chosen?

Real Estate: Fannie Mae Foreclosure, we are renting, help? So we've been renting a House for 3 years and paid every month. Now we found out not the case for our owner, the property had gone to foreclosure auction and has reverted back to Fannie Mae. Does anyone have information or experience on this? Would still like to rent but we are not fond of a month to month and having a realtor to have access to bring strangers in through th house for showings. Any information will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

How does the fannie mae homebuyer credit work? I'm purchasing a Fannie Mae owned foreclosure. We are being offered a 3.5% rebate off of the purchase price to go towards closing costs and pre-paids. It's looking like our closing costs are going to be less than the 3.5% allotted, and I don't want to lose the extra money. Does anyone have any experience with this? How do we maximize the rebate?

Fannie Mae foreclosure purchase? I am in the process of purchasing a foreclosure home that is owned by Fannie Mae. They have an item listed in their addendum that states the following: "Grantee herein shall be prohibited from conveying captioned property to a bonafide purchaser for value for a sales price of greater than $150,000 for a period of 3 months from the date of this deed. Grantee shall also be prohibited from encumbering subject property with a security interest in the principal amount of greater that $150,000 for a period of 3 motnhs from the date of this deed. This restriction shall terminate immediately upon conveyance at any forclosure sale related to a mortgage or deed of trust. " Can anyone explain this to me and put this in plain english terms. The home is in Texas if that makes any difference. Is there anyway around this clause?

I am purchasing a foreclosure from Fannie Mae, should I expect any additional expenses at closing? I am just wondering if foreclosures bring any additional costs. I am not financing the property.

Fannie Mae foreclosure? I am thinking of making an offer on a Fannie Mae foreclosure. (homepath.com). Will Fannie Mae pay half closing 3%? I am going to offer over list price.

fannie mae foreclosure? I am going to put an offer in on a fannie mae foreclosure. The asking price is 84900 I was going to offer 80000 and ask for a 1500 appliance allowance. My realtor said he is not sure if fannie mae can do the 1500 appliance but that we might just have to ask that they put appliances in. Does anyone know anything about this? What do you think of the offer should we start out higher? Thanks

I am trying to buy a foreclosure and Fannie Mae is as king for a 10% earneast money, is that customary? I am a bit concerned of giving so much money and if anything goes wrong, I could loose.

How long does fannie mae require a foreclosure to be seasoned? foreclosure closed off 4 years ago. Getting a refer on lender sponsered do.

If I get preapproved with Fannie Mae, can I buy a foreclosure? If yes, can I buy it from an auction? I'm located in Georgia, and I want to buy a foreclosure. If I get preapproved through a Fannie Mae lender can I buy at an auction or do I need to use a realtor? Also, can I get rehab money included in the loan (that is if the house is less than my approval amount)? Thanks!

advice on buying a house from fannie mae? Anyone have any suggestions or tips for getting the best deal on a foreclosure from fannie mae? Is there any possible way to negotiate with them directly instead of the realtor? How flexible is fannie mae with prices? (the house im interested in is listed by the realtor for 25k but im sure would sell for much less in a county auction)

fannie mae foreclosure question? I am looking at a fannie mae forclosure any advice when I put in my offer? Are the usually pretty neg or pretty much just asking what they need out of it? I was thinking about offering the asking price 84900 but asking for a 1500 appliance allowance because all the appliances are gone what do you suggest? Think they will accept it? Thanks

Question about Fannie Mae foreclosure timeline? Hello all... Im interested in purchasing a property that was prev finananced with citimortgage and was foreclosed a few days ago. It is now being transferred back to Fannie Mae which will then relist and sell again. Fannie mae customer service told me the process to relist can take from 30 up to 90 days and there is no way they can sell it sooner than that. I have alread been approved for a loan, have looked at property and willing to purchase it "as is" My question is, I would like to purchase this property ASAP, is there any way or I can speed up the process and not have to wait 30 days? Anyone I can talk to maybe an attorney or something? my agent says there is nothing we can do but wait. Any advice is appreciated I forgot to mention, the prev owner that had the house was going to sell it to me and i have all the contracts signed, its just that my agent didnt submit all the paperwork in time to citimorgtage. Im not sure if that would make a difference or not.

fannie mae assett manager? I would like to list fannie mae foreclosure homes how do I get on the REO list.

Currently working with Fannie Mae, if foreclosure in process wouldn't we receive notice?

so i just faund a nice house that is owned by Fannie-Mae it's been on foreclosures? so my question is can i buy it fix it a resell it in lets say 2 months or is this Fannie-Mae like hud where u have to live in it for 2 years

What are my options if Fannie Mae bought the home I rent at auction after foreclosure? I just found out the home I'm renting has been foreclosed on and Fannie Mae owns it. The property manager was just as shocked as we were and says there is no money in the account. There is no mortgage or foreclosure clause in the lease. Do the new owners have to honor my lease, which expires in February? BTW, I'm in Virginia...Thanks.

Fannie Mae foreclosure - can a family member purchase my foreclosed home? Just curious. My foreclosed home came back on the market. I had gutted the entire home in 2008 with full set of architect reno plans before housing collapse, job loss, & chronic unemployment set in ... House was foreclosed by GMAC and just came on the market at a substantially reduced price. Considered not livable - hence Fannie is fast tracking with cash only requirements. House has only been on mls for 4 days and garnered 6 cash offers. Listing agent indicated that due to interest, yesterday was "last day to present a final & best offer". My Father is interested in the property and his agent says he should float a back up offer just in case. Likely that his offer will be the highest as I have a gut feeling/insight on bids. Would Fannie likely laugh at the prospect of my father putting in a cash offer - purchasing for his primary property??? or is cash cash at this point. thx

The new "Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act" does that only cover loans from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Or does it include loans from any source? The property manager of the house we are renting told me today that it only covers loans from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We are 6 months into a 2 year lease and just found out our landlord is heading for foreclosure.

How does Fannie Mae notify the former homeowner about a repossession after foreclosure sale?

Fannie Mae bought my foreclosure for more than owed. Will I get a 1099? I bought an investment property to flip in 2005 for $250000. Put 20% down so I owed $200000 In 2009 it went into foreclosure and was sold. The buyer was Fannie Mae and they paid $250000 for it. It seems they bought it for more than what I owed. I can't imagine foreclosure fees and penalties would be more than $50000. I later noticed that Fannie Mae sold the property for $139000 taking a loss of $111,000. Will I get a 1099 from my lender or Fannie Mae? It seems they are buying up properties at inflated prices to help out the banks. So, does this mean that Fannie Mae will issue me a 1099? How can they if they purchased it from my lender for more than I owed? My lender wouldn't be able to issue a 1099 since they recouped their losses and Fannie Mae has nothing to do with me? I'm confused.

Can I buy a Condo with Fannie Mae? What are the condo guidelines when buying with Fannie Mae? Can it be a foreclosure?

Fannie Mae thinks my home purchase is a bail-out? I'm trying to buy my mothers house. She was foreclosed on and the bank now has ownership of the house. She has taken up residence in my grandparents old house so she has no interest in the house I'm buying. Fannie Mae has decided to deny my loan because they say I am bailing out my mother from her foreclosure. Is there anything I can provide or tell them that is not the case, that the house is for me and not my mother?

Am real estate agent wanting to list Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Foreclosed houses? If someone could direct me to applications for RE agents to fill out to list foreclosed properties for Fannie Mae, Citi Bank, Countrywide, etc. I dont understand how only certain RE company in a town list all the foreclosed properties from these mortgage entities. When a Fannie Mae loan is defaulted on and they get it back and want to sell it, I would like to be the agent or one of the agents that they call in my area (North LA) to list the home for sell. ALSO I would like to sign up with FANNIE MAE as Property Preservation Specialist to maintain these homes, such as lawn care, winterizaions, damage assessment during foreclosure. I have scoured Fannie Maes website and can not find one place that helps me. Also need find the Fannie Mae guidelines on property preservation such as a handbook outlining their requirements to be done. I also need to find HUDS guidelines and would like to be Agent in my area to list HUD Homes. Is it true, u have to knw peple in hgh places to get in.

If mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures broke a record during the 1Q, does than mean Fannie lost even MORE? I know the Obama administration extended an UNLIMITED line of credit to Fannie and Freddie in December (presumably because they KNEW there were going to be A LOT more foreclosures). Ironically, Fannie and Freddie are no where to be found in this financial reform bill. What do you think?? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_on_bi_ge/us_home_foreclosures WASHINGTON – The number of homeowners who missed at least one mortgage payment surged to a record in the first quarter of the year, a sign that the foreclosure crisis is far from over. More than 10 percent of homeowners had missed at least one mortgage payment in the January-March period, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday. That number was up from 9.5 percent in the fourth quarter of last year and 9.1 percent a year earlier. Those figures are adjusted for seasonal factors. For example, heating bills and holiday expenses tend to push up mortgage delinquencies near the end of the year. Many of those borrowers become current on their loans again by spring. http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-gse-conservatorship/5/11/2010/id/28220 Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) continue to drain taxpayer money as the Treasury provides unlimited lines of credit through 2012. Last week Freddie asked for $10.6 billion and on Monday Fannie asked for $8.4 billion. This brings the total bailout of the GSEs to $144.9 billion. I've been predicting that conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie will be the largest cost to taxpayers of all the financial bailout programs, and that will prove to be the case as the GSEs will have unlimited access to the Senior Preferred Program though 2012. Through the third quarter of 2009, Fannie Mae had tapped its $200 billion line of credit for $60 billion, leaving $140 billion. Its final line at the end of 2012 will be $140 billion plus the losses for the 13 quarters ending with the fourth quarter of 2012. bad ass.............." I bet you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government agencies, don't you?" Lol............I bet you think you are fking clever, don't you??" Fannie and Freddie are GSE's that should have NEVER been created in the first place. "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are only the middleman. " They BOUGHT loans (it's what they do). When the loans default. They LOSE money.

Is Fannie Mae trying to keep bad debt and acquire more bad debt in order to get more TARP money? They have rejected my offer of 79% of listed price on a house they acquired through foreclosure. This house is going to auction May 16, and they have no other offers! Why would they turn mine down and keep collecting taxpayer dollars on a bad debt? They will definitely make less at auction! I just don't get it.

Foreclosure In CA, If Fannie Mae now owns your home is there any chance of saving it? Will they work with you?

Buying foreclosure house from fannie mae? I make an offer on a house for $149K plus the seller pay for closing cost, got a counter offer back asking full price and they only pay 6K toward closing. I then counter back as 152K and later receive an email from my realtor state they accept the offer and want me to sign some paper. However when I receive the paper it didn't the price that I offer it a full price. Call my realtor back and she call the listing agent , and the listing agent said she was working on so many file and thought that the price I offer. she has to call Fannie mae and they now decline the offer. The house only been in market for 1 weeks, no other show and no offer yet( as my realtor told me) . Now what I need to do should I wait or accept offer ( it a good deal for property but I still want a bargain, since I have to put more money in the house to fix and change a few things). Please tell me anythere thing I can do since the listing agent make a mistake. Thank alll The listing price is $154900, and my 1st offer was 149K, then I go up to 152K. Call my realtor and let know that I wanted to counter offer she then call the listing agent to let the seller know. There is not misunderstand between me and my realtor, the problem is between my realtor and the listing agent of the house.

fannie mae evictions? I'm currently living in a property that was lost in foreclosure in late nov.2008 on DEC. 4 I received a 60 day notice. I found out 2 weeks ago the property was Fannie Mae owed since they stopped foreclosures and evictions till march 6, 2009 will the 60 days start counting after march 6 or by that day I have to move. I contacted the agent in charge of the property and told them I'm interested in renting the property from Fannie Mae and he told me I was better off moving instead. What can i do to find out more i tried calling Fannie Mae and was told i need to get the info from the agent in charge of the property please help I am located in California

Family of 5 already lives here, can we buy Fannie Mae home before it's listed? Tenants in foreclosure! Can I buy this house before it's listed? We have given Fannie Mae's lawyer and their real estate agent the offer, and the commitment. Have an eviction date of 12-4-08

Can Fannie Mae foreclose on the White House? Would you be surprised if the U.S. Congress had approved a secret mortgage on the Capitol and Countrywide was ready to foreclose? Maybe that is the best way to get those crooks out of there. Foreclosure! Just padlock the whole place. Call for a lockout.

What happened to Fannie Mae's money? Fannie Mae went through a couple of hundred billions of dollars over the past few years. Where did it go? Fannie Mae doesn't have it. The banks don't have it ... (Do they?) ... They are begging for handouts! The people don't have it ... (Foreclosures). Who got all that money?

If Barack Obama helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack in the housing scandal,? do you think government officials serve to benefit from this scandal? Do you think the millions of home foreclosures due to this were an accident or deliberate? And do you think Obama is going to win the election by a landslide and that we as Americans are in for some real big trouble? Your opinion please? And feel free to leave links to news articles, videos and other webistes. Thank you.

How long do we have to wait to take out a 2nd mortgage? We are wanting to do debt consolidation. We just made our first house payment. It was a Fannie Mae foreclosure which we purchased thru a loan with the USDA. We paid $58,000 the house appraises for $72,500. How long do we have to wait to get a 2nd mortgage and how much could we get? Any help would be great ...thanks

A Fannie Mae Homepath Property? I was looking at houses for sale and i really liked a house that was for foreclosure,the description said that it was a Fannie Mae Homepath Property. In simple words, what does this mean? And it also says "THIS PROPERTY IS APPROVED FOR HOMEPATH RENOVATION MORTGAGE FINANCING".

Why is Fannie Mae so nice to me? I told them many times that I have absolutely no intention of paying for my house and that I won't qualify for their programs. But still, they keep being so nice, they even extended my foreclosure until after Jan 9. They're losing so much by being so nice to someone like me who told them my evil plans.

Both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hold a combined worth of $5T in held mortgages. Should we still bail them out? It really disturbs me that our government is even *considering* such a ridiculous move! Why should Corporate America get the red carpet treatment when we have Americans left and right swaddled in debt and foreclosures? Whatever the hell happened to caring for US? This just makes me *sick*. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080711/wall_street.html

Are Fannie mae Homepath loans as picky as FHA to be approved? I heard FHA has a lot of requirements, like the house must have a stove (also I think it needs a working heater?) What about Fannie Mae? are they as picky to close with a homepath loan on one of their foreclosures? Also do you know where I can get a list of what the house must have installed, be in working order, ect. for the loan to be approved for both FHA and Fannie Mae? (I tried a search on google, and could not find it, but maybe I need better keywords. I'm not used to real estate terms) Thanks in advance The house is a Fannie Mae REO. I am looking for a site that says if it would pass, but for a list of the requirements it must have to pass.

In 2002, why did Bush ask his fannie mae appointees to "make 440 BILLION in subprime loans to minorities"? Here is the video...go to the 4 minute mark to hear him say it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8 Here is the offical white house text of that speech he gave in atlanta on june 17, 2002. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html Here is the offical white house fact sheet: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html Bush said "...That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts." (Please note that bush appoints Leland and Franklin to their jobs at fannie mae and freddie mac so when he asks for 440 BILLION that is basically a presidential order) Also note: The govt can not force a bank to make a bad loan. And surely, an ALL REPUBLICAN GOVT would not force a bank to make a bad loan. In 2002, republicans controlled both congress and the white house. You can't blame this on democrats and barney frank. In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in a speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to

Why won't anyone advertising Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac properties make them searchable for features like pools? Even outside sites don't bother, and these foreclosures are stacking up big time. In my opinion, their websites were poorly constructed from day one, and I've commented elsewhere about this. Outside of not making features searchable, Fannie Mae isn't too bad. Freddie Mac used to give colorform style representations of their houses. Now Freddie uses real pictures, but it won't let you open links in a separate tab/window, so you have to go back and forth and back and.. ..and it doesn't show you the zips upfront which are a quick giveaway on the neighborhood... so people have to search and search.. It's gotten to the point where I'm using the County Appraiser site as a primary site to look these properties up.

In 2002, why did Bush order 440 BILLION in subprime loans from fannie mae/freddie mac? Here is the video...go to the 4 minute mark to hear him say it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8 Here is the offical white house text of that speech he gave in atlanta on june 17, 2002. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html Here is the offical white house fact sheet: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html Bush said "...That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts." (Please note that bush appoints Leland and Franklin to their jobs at fannie mae and freddie mac so when he asks for 440 BILLION that is basically a presidential order) Also note: The govt can not force a bank to make a bad loan. And surely, an ALL REPUBLICAN GOVT would not force a bank to make a bad loan. In 2002, republicans controlled both congress and the white house. You can't blame this on democrats and barney frank. In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the s

Another Democrat being investigated for this Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Crash? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_go_co/us_senators_mortgages Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages. Since the AP is reporting this ...it must be true.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been nationalized, with the taxpayer assuming its debts... ? Bush went from boasting about "record home ownership" to avoiding talking about "record home foreclosures". His "ownership society" has turned into a "bankruptcy society". Like his shameful aircraft-carrier, flight-suit landing stunt, most of bush's "successes" are fleeting and illusory, aren't they? What kind of economic calamity will befall America should McCain become president? Can America survive another 4 years of bush under McCain?

Fannie Mae Housing Loans? Today President Bush signed the mortgage relief bill, in order to head off 400,000 people who are having trouble making their mortgage payments and facing foreclosure The bill allows for trading their loans for new, more affordable mortgages through the Federal Housing Administration and temporary financial lifeline to troubled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With the number mentioned, one would think troubled home owner's are going to be all over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac like white on rice. Will the program cause these two agencies stock to rise? If the government is doing this somebody is going to make money off the program. Who? I'd like to take hold of that shooting star and make a little money. Suggestions?

Fannie Mae declines my condo due to delinquencies in the neighborhood.Lending bank appeals, now what? I've been under a contract for buying a foreclosure for about 6 months now. Today (9/25/2009) was the day I would have settled, however I find out 1 hour before settling time that Fannie Mae has declined my condo, according to my lending bank (Suntrust). After communicating with Fannie Mae, Suntrust tells me Fannie is afraid of investing in this property I want to buy because the homeowners in that neighborhood are not paying their mortgages and there are reported delinquencies in that neighborhood. Somehow, these delinquencies are affecting my ability to settle on this house. I separately called Fannie Mae directly via telephone and one of their level 1 representatives told me that they "back" the property I want to buy (i.e. they are willing to invest money in it) but they feel it's too risky because they think I am "unqualified" as a buyer. But this is all very conflicting because my loan was approved with Suntrust and their underwriters. In fact, my credit score is 700+. The Fannie level 1 representative said the reason is unknown why they think I'm unqualified and the only way I can find out is by talking to Fannie level-2 representative, who will get in touch with me in 1 week since they are super-busy people. So now Suntrust is in the process of appealing the decision recently made by Fannie Mae. Is anyone familiar with appeal process with Fannie? Does anyone have any suggestions for what I should do? Legal advice? All / any help from anyone out there will be much appreciated (realtors, lenders, sellers, etc..). By the way, the property is in Howard County, Maryland

How do you know if your mortgage is held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? With the home owner relief plan Obama announced today, there were inclusions for people who are current on their loan payments and not at risk of foreclosure, but who owe more than 80% of the market value of their home. These inclusions however only apply to loans which are: "held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/18/news/economy/obama_foreclosure/index.htm?postversion=2009021812 So I called my mortgage company to find out if my loan is held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They told me it is their policy to never disclose investor information and they cannot tell me if it is held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They offered me no advice. So, how do people find out if their loans are held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac?

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Was the mistake taking it out of the hands of the federal government? ... when it was privatized, mortgages became plentiful, no matter what a person earned. $30,000 a year maintenance men were obtaining 400,000 homes. Then the rates changed. $1800 a month mortgage payments became 4,000 a month payments overnight. Looks as though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will revert back to its original owners. The federal government. So. 1 out of 500 homeowners in the United States are facing foreclosure. In a few years, those "400,000.00 homes' will only bring 250,000.00 on the market. Does anyone see a rebound in the housing market anytime soon? And will builders just build more apartments to accommodate those who have or will lose their homes? .. ... dude I never said they were privatized by the bushes.. privitization bought out Mac and Mae. Then they got greedy...hence thei basically 'going out of business;' and DAR: quit assuming. I'm not even sure what the bush/Paulson plan is, and could care less. I just asked a few questions. .. ...

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Why should we be worried? I saw on the news that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hold 50% of all mortgages in the USA and are backing 70% of all new mortgages. And they are starting to feel the foreclosure crunch. They are privately held companies that are GSE's (gov't sponsored entities....started by the fed but now in private sector. They have stockholders.) Questions: What happens to the mortgages if they fail? (I realize that it is likely that the gov't would bail them out ....but what would happen if they didn't?) As it is privately held, w/ stockholders, why should the gov't (and taxpayers!) bail them out? Why is this causing such waves thru the international financial markets? In short, what is the big deal?

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Why should we be worried? I saw on the news that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hold 50% of all mortgages in the USA and are backing 70% of all new mortgages. And they are starting to feel the foreclosure crunch. They are privately held companies that are GSE's (gov't sponsored entities....started by the fed but now in private sector. They have stockholders.) Questions: What happens to the mortgages if they fail? (I realize that it is likely that the gov't would bail them out ....but what would happen if they didn't?) As it is privately held, w/ stockholders, why should the gov't (and taxpayers!) bail them out? Why is this causing such waves thru the international financial markets? In short, what is the big deal?

How long do I need to wait for the bank to sign the addendum to buy a foreclosure? I sent a purchase contract to Fannie Mae for a foreclosure and they sent back an addendum. I reviewed it, signed it and sent it back last week. How long do they usually take to signed the contract? and how about if they hold the contract for another week or weeks to see if they get a better offer, can I get out of it?

Why do we have to pay for the Republicans seizing the largest mortgage giants Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? Taxpayers are going to have to pay for this people!!! THIS IS A HUGE bail out for the rich!! Aren't Republicans against SOCIALISM?? LOL They could help the middle class foreclosure crisis but they don't. They WILL however bail out investors!!! WAKE UP AMERICA!! http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/government-seied-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/

With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failing, is it the worst time to buy a home? I live in foreclosure capital - Stockton, CA. Homes are cheap but not as cheap as it was in 2001/2002. I'm looking for a home but with the news of Freddie and Fannie failing, I'm reluctant to put a down payment for a house and be tied to a mortgage for a home that may loose significant value in the next year or two. However, I know if there is a bail out of Freddie or Fannie, it may be even more difficult to obtain a mortgage in the future if I don't act now. Any suggestions of what I should do (buy or wait) or any other inputs would be greatly appreciated.

On corporate bailouts and foreclosures? Any justifications for why the government is already planning for the bailouts of freddie mac and fannie mae while assistance for people who have been victims of the foreclosure meltdown has been met with incredibly strong resistance? how is this anything but a naked concern for the welfare of corporations at the expense of the suffering of americans? edit: to those who think that bailing those corporations out will be beneficial: "Bush administration officials are considering a plan to have the government take over one or both of the companies and place them in a conservatorship if their problems worsen...Under a conservatorship, the shares of Fannie and Freddie would be worth little or nothing, and any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee — which could be staggering — would be paid by taxpayers." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/business/11fannie.html?hp does anyone think that a bailout in this form will help anyone keep their jobs instead of simply stalling until the company tanks a la bear stearns? according to some, apparently when people recklessly play with the jobs and money of thousands of people, they deserve corporate welfare and yet when an individual is poor, they deserve all they get.

Real Estate offers on foreclosure homes... how low can I go? I am searching for a house, and I obviously want a great deal with the housing market being like it is. I found a great little "gingerbread" house that would be just perfect for me, and it is a Fannie Mae foreclosure home. I was advised to make a low-ball offer, and it would probably be accepted. But, how low can I go? It is listed at $75,000.00. It has been on the market for at least a couple of months, judging by the snow-free photos online. The real estate agent says that, even in a good market, it is probably not even worth quite that much. Single Family Property 2 total bedroom(s) 1.5 total bath(s) 1 total full bath(s) 1 total half bath(s) Approximately 1014 sq. ft. 1 car garage Parking features: SLATE Heating features: Heating Fuel Type:OIL, FORCED AIR Forced air heat Inclusions: WATER HEATER: GAS Exterior construction: VINYL, Foundation: BLOCK Approximate lot is 55 x 132 Zoning: RESIDENTIAL Utilities present: PUBLIC WATER, SEWER WASTE Parcel Access: CONCRETE, PUBLIC ROAD I live in Wisconsin... and I heard that in inner city Milwaukee, homes that are assessed at $80,000.00 are going for as low as $15,000.00. I am not in inner city Milwaukee (or any part of Milwaukee for that matter), so I don't expect to go that low. But, what would you offer? How low would you go?

Bank of America Mortgage Apprasial and Underwriters? I am in the process of getting a mortgage from BOA. This has been an absolute nightmare with incompetent people. My closing date has come and gone and I had to get a 10-day extension. I went through underwriting, got a comittment letter and was approved with conditions (paper work) which I have met. It took 3 weeks for the appraisal to be done. Inspections done. Now a different underwriter at BOA says that everything noted on the apprasial and inspections must be done before they will close. Everything? I can understand if it is major items, like a roof or foundation issue (which is not the case here), or safety items noted as "should be addressed immediately" What about "was not required at the time of construction, however it is recommended as a safety item"? This underwriter told me BOA does not finance AS IS properties and will only finance foreclosure properties if they are in "good" condition. Is this ture? I sent the contract in with my application which clearly states that this is a Fannie Mae Foreclosure AS IS property and also told people at BOA on the phone. The majority of the market today is Bank-Owned Foreclosure AS IS properties. I have completed all the conditions noted on BOA's approval / comittment letter. This new underwriter all of a sudden has added new ones without signing an addendum to the prior condition addendum to change the conditions. Such as, wants my 2008 tax returns completed and filed with the IRS now. Prior underwriter who reviewed everything said in an e-mail "We do not require your 2008 tax returns because the filing due date with the IRS has not passed." Monday I will call BOA and ask to speak to a supervisor. FYI The appraiser discounted a 20,000 in-ground pool because he said it wasn't working. It does if you turn the switch to on. Sorry this is long and Thank you for all answers

How long do I have to reinvest capital gains from the sale of my primary residence? OK, if that sounds easy, let's see how many variables I can throw in. I bought a Fannie Mae foreclosure house last September and undertook a host of extensive renovations myself. I couldn't finance the house and renovations through a mortgage, so my parents co-signed a line of credit that needs to be rolled into a mortgage before this September. After spending seven months subletting an apartment during construction, I moved in to my house. I attached utility bills and building permits to my '08 tax return to document that, for purposes of the first-time homebuyer credit, my project should be considered a site-built house with the applicable date for the credit being the day I moved in--I got the $8K grant as if I'd made a 2009 purchase (have to repay if it's not my permanent residence for three years). I'll be deploying to Iraq later this summer and am rushing to convert my loan into a mortgage before I leave town for pre-deployment training. But the refinance is going to cost me over $7000!!! I'm not happy about repaying all the fees I paid during my cash sale closing last year and am considering selling vice the refi. I plan to put the house on the market at a price to net me $15K after sales fees and construction expenses; for various reasons I'll refinance if I can't clear that amount. It is my understanding that if I sell, I would owe the IRS $8000 and roughly 25% of any capital gains (under my reading I don't qualify for home sales capital gains exemptions). However, I would put any money I save overseas and proceeds from this house into another fix-up foreclosure home when I return next summer. a) how can I minimize my tax liability and maximize my funds towards a new residence? b) if I can avoid cap gains tax and the credit pay-back by reinvesting in a new primary residence, how long do I have to reinvest? Will I be able to convince the feds that time spent for military service in a combat zone should be tacked on to that clock? c) I did most of the work, from demo'ing a pool in the backyard, replacing wood paneling with sheetrock, installing hardwood floors, relocating kitchen, etc. with my labor and the help of great friends. If I had bids for some of the projects I undertook, can I expense my labor to reduce capital gains? The profits aren't coming through speculation (not that I philosophically object to that), but through nine months of my blood and sweat. It doesn't seem right that I could deduct paying someone to texture my walls but get hit if I buy the sprayer and do it myself. d) should I be doing anything during the sale or refi to make something else in the process easier? Thanks for reading my novel, and I really appreciate any tips! Thanks for the advice. I'm asking here for ideas, previous experiences and hopefully some sources (I've checked IRS pubs but they, of course, don't expand on all the variables here). I'll be verifying whatever counsel I receive but can imagine some valuable feedback from this community.

How can I find out who voted for S.2636 (raised National Debt another $1 TRILLION)??? The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Foreclosure Bill. I think it's S.2636. If it isn't please correct me. But is there a place I can go to see who voted for or against that bill?

Where do you find legit information on buying foreclosed real estate and attending real estate auctions? I live in CA and have taken two college level Real Estate classes and a few seminars, but no one seems to have any information that is actually available to the public on how to buy foreclosures, where to get the lists from for free and where to find the auctions. My college instructors advised to just buy a house via the "normal" route and avoid many of the problems people have with such properties, and the seminar instructors just seemed to want to sell their own mailing lists which just listed banks that didn't have any information you couldn't find on Google. I've sent a few letters to Fannie Mae and have only received their "new home buyers' guide - which is very informative - but not helpful. I'd like to invest in foreclosures and possibly "flip" a property and I know it isn't easy and it is a true risk of $$, but it seems like those in the know are keeping quiet about their resources - if this is public information, where do you find it without taking a get-rich quick seminar?

Who is responsible for the Economy situation today? The current financial crisis facing the United States of America and the world began with the US home ownership debacle and President William Jefferson Clinton. In 1994, Clinton signed a bill to promote low-income home ownership that Business Week calls "one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership" for those applicants who did not qualify for fixed mortgages. And these applicants came in droves and were almost always approved - no matter their credit histories or ability to pay. Said "creative ownership" began the heavy distribution of ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) that ensued. These ARMs began low but, are based on the market. As the market changed, the rates - and subsequent monthly payments for homeowners - rose to rates that the homeowners could no longer afford. Foreclosures on the ARM properties began and, like Dominos cascading onto one another, the current financial meltdown began. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC were essentially and quietly taken over by the Clinton Administration and his operatives and supporters - including Franklin Raines who ran Fannie Mae and ended up with over $6M his first year - raided both corporations which had become their personal slush funds. From his days of running Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines is reported to have accumulated a personal net worth of over $100M. Another Clintonian buddy - Jamie Gorelick (remember her from the CIA/FBI fiasco?) - is also said to be personally worth in excess of $100M. It appears that some in government service CAN achieve wealth beyond the wildest dreams of most of us! They just have to sell their souls to the highest bidder and be willing to betray their fellow Americans. This fortune was accumulated during her years (1997-2003) as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae. The fraudulent accounting scheme which apparently allowed for Democrats Raines, Gorelick and other Clinton supporters to achieve vast fortunes in a very short period of time was brought to light in 2004. As mortgage firms and investment banks heavily leveraged by ARM mortgages started to be adversely affected by the number of foreclosures, the current financial crisis began in earnest. Democrats Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) also the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee - of all things - and Democrat presidential Candidate Barack Obama (who is reported to be the 3rd largest recipient of Fannie Mae political contributions - said to be over $100K in less than 4 years) have also benefited greatly from these Democrats' personal slush funds. However, in the worst cut to We the People from the knife of corruption, the very people who created this problem will now be in charge of "correcting" it! Does this make any sense to anyone except those who have received and continue to receive funds from these institutions?????????? If we really want to get rid of these corruptions we have to vote these sleazes out of office. That requires courage. The only question remaining is: Do we have the internal fortitude to do it? If the answer is "No," you can kiss your money and your country good bye and prepare for an inevitable serfdom. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/ clintons_drive.html http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/993847-1.html http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2007/0507karger.html http://volokh.com/posts/1216060102.shtml http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091808/content/ 01125107.guest.html http://americantaxpayer.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/barney-frankchuck- schumer-role-in-failure-of-fannie-maefreddie-mac/ People wake up stop listing to your liberal bias media and get the facts!!!

What happens if a second wave of foreclosures and big company failures start along with new credit crisis? in late 2008, there was a financial meltdown where bad home loans and credit crisis led to the collapse of "too big to fail" companies like AIG, citibank, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc etc. At that time credit card defaults and home foreclosures were alarmingly high. Then the government came up with TARP or "bailout" program to help these banks and large failed companies. As result stock market rallied and Bernanke boasted of "recession ending" and "economic rebound now" However, due to such actions the deficit soared over trillions and US national debt skyrocketed. If a second wave of such corporate failures and credit card/ bank defaults start, will the government again bailout? Is it possible that the government just keeps creating TARP over and over again and always keeps bailing out to prevent recession damage? How long can such game last?

What will be the fall out of the credit crunch? ONLY SERIOUS ANSWERS PLEASE With the news of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, the Washington Mutual troubles, and the increasing foreclosure rates and decreasing housing values... Besides increased energy costs, what is the risk to the average American? I know that tax dollars are being used to try and clean up some of these messes, but I don't understand how that'll work considering the national debt. Any insights on what we can expect?

Why do bank owned foreclosures resell for 3 times or more than what the foreclosure was assumed? With SO many foreclosures on the market and hundreds more every day, WHY are the REO's so expensive and hard to negotiate with? Quite often that county's property appraiser's office will show what the note was bought for and the resale price is quite hefty! I tried to negotiate with Fanny Mae TWICE on 2 different properties and they stubbornly held to their selling price of 3 times over the foreclosed amount! This was BEFORE the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac collapse! No pity for them here! To: monkeypb...I thought Freddie Mac AND Fannie Mae DID get bailed out?

Does Obama Realize Fanny Mae And Freddie Mac Going Broke Will Destroy The U.S.'s Economy? "Obama Says US May Not Take Any Action to Aid Fannie, Freddie" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAW_rPkbdr4s&refer=home The FRE and FMN carry $5 Trillion in debt. Them crashing would cause home prices to crash and it would create mountains of foreclosures. There would be massive joblosses do to all of the damage done to the housing sector and the contaction of liquidity. Also, the dollar would fall even further which would drive up gas prices but it would increase exports. Bill Clinton caused the failure in the housing market. He changed rules to help poor people to buy homes that they could not afford. That created a housing bubble. Bubbles "pop" years after they are created. Also, Bill Clinton was the one who wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase non-prime loans. U.S. Federal Reserve http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-30a.gif Obama's proposed spending plan is the largest in history of America. Obama also voted to increase tax on anyone making over $33,000 and he calls to increase social security taxes. Correction: "due to all of the damage" not "do to all of the damage"

Would it be wise for the government to bail out those stupid people that took advantage of sub prime loans? Would it be wise for the government to bail out those stupid people that took advantage of sub prime loans? I believe you are responsible for your own choices and you should pay the price for your decisions Last Friday the U.S. Federal Reserve cut the rate at which it makes direct loans to banks, sending a signal to Wall Street that it is aware of the credit contraction that has hit global financial markets. At the same time, the Fed wisely refrained from lowering its target federal-funds rate, through which it controls monetary policy, although Fed officials have indicated that a cut could be in the offing if markets don’t stabilize soon. The Bush administration has also demonstrated admirable restraint, resisting calls to let troubled mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge into the market and increase their holdings. Demagogic politicians (and frantic investors) have shown less self-control, and the inevitable pressure to “do something” is bound to intensify. The administration and the Fed should resist this pressure. For one thing, the current crisis is unlikely to affect the economy in any significant way. As that becomes clearer, the hysteria will subside. For another, it is necessary that those lenders, borrowers, and investors who created the sub-prime mortgage mess bear its consequences. What we are seeing now is a necessary market correction. Several years of poor lending and borrowing decisions in the sub-prime mortgage market have resulted in a large increase in the number of foreclosures this year. Accordingly, Wall Street is reevaluating the credit quality of billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities. Having found many to be overvalued, the market is making the necessary adjustments: Lenders are making fewer risky loans. Some of the biggest, such as Countrywide Financial, have tapped large lines of credit to cover short-term borrowing needs, announced layoffs, and instituted other cost-cutting measures. A few hedge funds have imploded, and a few more are in deep trouble. This is because these lightly regulated funds typically leverage their bets with billions in borrowed money, compounding their losses when risky investments — such as sub-prime mortgage debt — turn sour. Some of Wall Street’s biggest credit-ratings firms have taken a well-deserved hit in the press for giving many securities backed by sub-prime mortgage debt higher ratings than they actually deserved. The next chapter for them could be investigations into whether they fraudulently manipulated their valuations. Several members of Congress and some ’08 Democratic candidates have argued that these market adjustments are not enough and that we need additional layers of regulation. Back in February, when the crisis began in earnest, John Edwards attacked “predatory” lending practices and proposed a new government agency to regulate mortgage lenders (in addition to the five that already exist). Of course, that was before the Wall Street Journal revealed that a hedge fund Edwards invested in and worked for had ties to sub-prime lenders that had foreclosed on Hurricane Katrina victims. In fact, sub-prime lending is not an unmitigated evil. The advent of sub-prime lending brought about a fairly dramatic increase in U.S. home ownership, which for decades hovered around 64 percent until shooting up to 69 percent between 1994 and 2004. To be sure, unscrupulous players entered the market as sub-prime lending became more profitable, and some of them hid the true cost of risky loans from naïve borrowers. But borrowers were often complicit, wildly overstating their incomes to qualify for loans they could not afford. The New York Times reported in March that these “liar loans accounted for 40 percent of the sub-prime mortgage issuance last year, up from 25 percent in 2001.” Hillary Clinton has proposed a $1 billion federal bailout to help such borrowers avoid foreclosure. And her fellow New York senator, Chuck Schumer, has joined her in calling for a wider role for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in stabilizing the mortgage markets. The Bush administration has correctly decided not to remove the limits on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were put into place last year when investigators discovered that both institutions had engaged in significant accounting irregularities. Fannie Mae officials argue that they can provide badly needed liquidity to the mortgage market. But as economist Brian Wesbury pointed out Monday, liquidity is not the real issue. The issue is a lack of information — no one seems to know how much these mortgages are really worth. The best thing the government can do is stay out of the way while the market reprices these securities. That goes for the Fed, too. The Fed has hinted that it might cut the federal-funds rate if the market continues to slide. In the esoteric world of Fed policy, where words can affect the markets as much as action, this was the right thing to say. But it wouldn’t be the right thing to do. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke’s shrewd move to cut the discount rate instead of the more consequential federal-funds rate calmed panicky investors without interfering with the market adjustment already underway. By cutting only the rate that the Fed charges on its own loans, Bernanke offered a lifeline to big institutions in dire financial straits, and bought more time for the market to correct itself without a change in monetary policy. Demagogues in Congress and on the campaign trail should learn a lesson here. Lenders, hedge funds, ratings firms, and, yes, foolhardy borrowers are paying a price for their excesses. Let’s not compound their folly by enacting a poorly thought-out policy.

How long does the foreclosure process last and what are the stages? Is court first or are u just evicted? i am about to be 4 months late on a Fannie Mae loan in Florida. I have already received a certified letter stating they can accelerate the loan if I don't pay in full in 30 days!

Are you insulted by being called a WHINER by the McCain Campaign Co-Chairman? ***The Housing Market is tanking ***Foreclosures are reaching record levels ***Food and Fuel Costs are going out of sight ***Banks are starting to fail ***Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need multi trillion dollar bail outs ***Unemployment is on the rise Do we really need Republicans who deny there is anything wrong pulling out text book definitions of recessions and telling us our suffering is all in our head?

Does Christopher Dodd have some "splaining" to do on Freddie & Fannie? I Think Chris Dodd has Some ‘Splaining To Do By Jimmie on Sep 19, 2008 in Our New Democratic Overlords, The Economy and Your Money Toward the end of this very good New York Times article on Senators reaction to finding out just how close we came to complete financial meltdown, there’s a quote from Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd that I swear made my jaw drop. “We have got to deal with the foreclosure issue,” Mr. Dodd said. “You have got to stop that hemorrhaging..If you don’t, the problem doesn’t go away. Ben Bernanke has said it over and over again. Hank Paulson recognizes it. This problem began with bad lending practices. Those are his words, not mine, and so this plan must address that or I’ll be back here in front of a bank of microphones at some point explaining the next failure.” Well, heck, Senator, why wait? Why not step in front of the microphones right now and explain the current failure? You can start with telling us about the more than $160,000 dollars in lobbying money you took from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then you can explain where you were in 2003 when your committee was scuttling a bill that would have stopped the worst of this mess. After that, maybe you could give us a rundown on the $775,000 in sweetheart loans you got from Countrywide Financial - a company that benefited greatly from the bad loans FNMA and FHLMC was issuing. You could start that bit of your explanation by telling us what being a “Friend of Angelo” really meant. Then you could finish by telling us about the over $70,000 in political contributions you’ve gotten from Bank of America - the company that swooped in and bought Countrywide Financial for pennies on the dollar. Maybe if he spent an hour doing that, he wouldn’t have to worry about explaining any future failure, because he wouldn’t be a Senator anymore. That won’t happen, though. Chris Dodd is a heck of a lot more concerned with losing his job than he is about being honest or representing the taxpayers of America responsibly. sundriesshack.com/2008/.../i-think-chris-dodd-has-some-splaining-to-do

I am a mental health patient and the library keeps calling the police to 'check' on me ? I moved to a small town because I am disabled and wanted to get away from city life -now this small town is great yet twice librarians have called the police to check on me -''concern'' runs -I have never been helped by a police man- NEVER-and these 'concern' runs bother me for days afterward -I am afraid that they will put me in a lock-down unit for 5 days-just long enough to get my disability check canceled for a month and leaving me unable to pay my rent -leaving me homeless . This has happened to me twice in the past and I will not go quietly anymore and I am so afraid I will hurt someone -something I swore I would never do again . Is there a protocol I may follow before this escalates into a body count ? All I did was cry when I read an article a few weeks ago about Fannie Mae stopping foreclosure on a 90 year old widows home only after she had shot herself in the chest -I have a great deal of empathy for the elderly as my grandmother rescued me from DFC when my family dissolved when I was 4 .

Does anyone know how if it is possible to get refinancing after my credit score was destroyed from fraud.? The results of the fraud ( perpetrated by a family member) was to file bankruptcy. I recently settled my chapter 13 bankruptcy and avoided foreclosure. Now with a low credit score and no credit cards, I still own my home but wish to refinance to consolidate my first and second mortgages at a lower interest rate. Are there any programs through Fannie Mae or other federal programs?

What is Raining down on the Obama parade? Ben Smith had this cute little piece out on 16 July of this year on the Raines - Obama connection. An ill-timed -- for Obama -- profile of former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, forced out in an accounting mess a few years ago. The Style Section piece reports that he's recently been taking "calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." Taking calls? Doesn't that mean Obama has been calling him? The McCain Campaign had a nice video out on the connection between Obama and Raines. And there is another video out of Fannie Mae head Daniel Mudd praising Obama. So who is Daniel Mudd? I think it will come as no surprise that he lives in a Mudd hut. A 22-room Mudd hut. Evidently ripping off the taxpayers pays very well. Very well indeed. As more than a million US homeowners face devastating mortgage foreclosures, ousted Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd continues to live in an opulent Washington, DC, mansion replete with expansive gardens, servants' quarters and a home theater. Mudd, whose former company is being bailed out by billions in taxpayer dollars, calls home a 22-room Colonial mansion on Newark Street in tony Cleveland Park, built on the former property of President Grover Cleveland. The eight-bedroom, eight-bath pad includes large public rooms with fireplaces, a home theater, a gym, a wine cellar, a solarium, servants' quarters, a terrace off the master-bedroom suite, and a gourmet kitchen. The gated, landscaped property also features a pool, fountains, gardens and a guesthouse. The property is so lavish that some company employees dubbed it "Mudd Manor." And they're furious that the executive at the helm of the ship as it sank into profound crisis has surfaced relatively unscathed, at least for now. "Hey, he lost his limo and corner suite [at the office], but Mudd Manor is not a bad place to contemplate your next move," said a bitter Fannie Mae employee who requested anonymity. "Most Fannie Mae employees are reeling from their employee stock-option-plan account balances' going to cents on the dollar." So the little people get fleeced and the big guys walk. That Obama has some really swell friends.

Why is it most Mortgage Lender's cannot offer a modification? Fannie Mae and FHLMC excluded. Talking about the subprime and alternative programs. The answer I am told will get you out of foreclosures I am told...

Securitization: Why do banks make losses then? "As unemployment rose during the Depression, many homeowners could not make their balloon payments, causing a wave of sales and foreclosures. The federal government stepped in, creating the Federal Housing Administration (Fannie Mae) to insure long-term mortgages, and the Home Owners Loan Corporation to sell government-guaranteed bonds to purchase non-performing mortgages. This was the beginning of the securitization that is a central feature of today's mortgage market; lending risk is passed on to investors in mortgage-backed bonds rather than being held in the institution that originates the loans." So how much exactly as a rough % do banks sell as Mortgage Backed Securities and if the risk is being passed on to investors why exactly are the banks racking up such huge losses? Any help is greatly appreciated.

What is happening to our economy? I'm going to throw a bunch of words out there, and I want you to explain to me what is going on with them in "stupid people terms": -Bankruptcy -Foreclosures -Freddie Mac -Fannie Mae -Lehman bros. -Wall Street -Bailout -Loans etc. etc. You know what I'm talking about. I'm not an idiot, and I do already know a lot about what is going on, but I feel like I'm missing key elements that I can't understand, and maybe if someone started from the beginning, then I'd understand. I really appreciate all of your answers thus far, and can definitely understand everything a little better. But I guess the thing that I'm most confused about is that I keep hearing that a lot of this has to do with the greed of the top 1% who holds 40% of our wealth. Can you guys explain further about why or how the richest people in America can be ultimately responsible? Or are they?

FHA inspection concerns, and 10% earnest money? I am looking into purchasing a foreclosure with an FHA loan but I am wondering if it may be declined due to a few missing shingles and the bathroom has no tiles or floor covering. Also is it normal for Fannie Mae to ask 10% earnest money on foreclosures? Thanks everybody!

Who can stop this madness??? PLEASE HELP STOP THE MADNESS!!! It is really important that the SCARCITY CONVERSATION ENDS and that someone sheds a new context on how to resolve the housing issue! In Reference to Fannie Mae's Announcement: On March 31, Fannie Mae sent out new guidelines to lenders intended for walkaways and other foreclosure situations. Fannie will now prohibit foreclosed borrowers from getting another mortgage through the giant investor for five years, unless there are "documented extenuating circumstances." In those cases, the mortgage prohibition is for three years. Even after five years, borrowers with foreclosures in their files will be required to make at least a 10 percent down payment, and will need minimum FICO credit scores of 680. ******** This will just slow the housing market for an additional 5-7 years! I understand their need to do something but isn't there another way that could also stimulate growth in the economy and housing market? Also, if you look at the psychographics of Americans, most people are belongers, meaning they follow what everyone else is doing. The media can help with this. Many people are heading into foreclosure just because it seems like the most appropriate thing to do. Maybe an incentive can be created for those who do not foreclose instead of telling people how difficult it will be to purchase again in the future (SCARCITY CONVERSATION)! I am at a loss and have sat here thinking there is nothing I could do about it, and am no longer willing to sit back and wait. Can you help with this matter or at least point me in the direction of someone who can?

Making an offer on a home? My husband and I are getting ready to put an offer in on a foreclosure. It is a Fannie Mae property. They are asking 298K which is in range for the average cost of homes in the area. The homes does need repairs. Not cosmetic, but necessary. Drive way is collapsing over the culvert, carpet is shot, new AC etc. Estimated cost of repairs is 15K. What would be an acceptable starting offer for this home? When making an offer on foreclosures what do you suggest about the closing costs? Should I just plan on paying all closing costs since I am making a lower offer or should I ask for partial closing costs by the seller?

If Republicans believe in "Country First"; why are they supporting another extension of Bush's Presidency? Iraq War & Afghanistan Failed Economics Plans Housing Foreclosures and Bailouts of Fannie Mac & Mae Excessive Health Care Cost; etc...

West Georgia National Bank own my loan, how can I stop foreclosure ? My loan is no own by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, and I got served yesterday , what can i do to buy some time until the end of the month and be able to move all my stuff before they lock it. thank you

What do you think of Hillary's Economics plan? Will this work? Is it enough? Too much? Better than Obamas? http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/middleclass/ http://hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4283 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtZJYxXjq2HCu2HNRr4CdT7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080424152438AAuJosB&show=7#profile-info-SROn4HGgaa She says she will: 1) Extend middle class tax cuts and child tax credit. (not sure how this differs from Bush tax cuts) 2) Invest in alternate energy 3) Strengthen unions, increase protections in foreign trade 4) Balance the budget 5) Double HUDS housing counseling budget; add $100 million to bail out house owners 6) Spend $1 billion in cold weather states for home conservation initiatives 7) Provide $1 billion in home heating assistance to seniors 8) Create $1 billion fund for states to help at-risk borrowers 9) Allow state housing agents to offer $2.5 billion more bonds per year 10) further legislation to punish scam artists; encourage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to hold back on foreclosures 11) "aggressive action" for electric vehicles and more bi 1) "aggressive action" for electric vehicles and more biofuels 12) $50 billion energy fund, paid for by OIL COMPANIES to fund alternate energy research 13) $20 billion in green car bonds to encourage green cars 14) Double federal investment in energy research

How much is too much in salaries ? ? CEO Salaries Weather Mortgage Crisis CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Earned Roughly $30 Million in Salary Last Year By JUSTIN ROOD July 21, 2008 100 comments FONT SIZE EMAIL PRINT SHARE The chiefs of the nation's two largest mortgage lenders reaped roughly $30 million in salary, incentives and other perks last year, despite setting their banks on courses which now may require government bailouts. WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 20: Daniel Mudd (L) president and CEO of Fannie Mae and Richard Syron (R)... WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 20: Daniel Mudd (L) president and CEO of Fannie Mae and Richard Syron (R) chairman and CEO of Freddie Mac listen to questions during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill September 20, 2007 in Washington DC. The committee is hearing testimony about the problems with mortgage foreclosures. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Daniel Mudd, the CEO of Fannie Mae, received $11.6 million in salary, stock and other compensation for 2007. Richard Syron, CEO of Freddie Mac, took home about $18.3 million last year. In addition to Syron's salary, stock options and a $3.45 million bonus, Freddie Mac paid for a number of other perks for Syron, such as a car and driver, a home security system, travel costs for his wife, even $100,000 to pay his lawyer to negotiate his employment contract with the bank.

This is a question about Hurricane Katrina.? These facts below I displayed to support my question. Why did our government choose to send trailers to Atlanta snd store ice when they coudl have used HUD to get people in the empty homes. You have an entire govenrment staff already in place selling hud homes. Why not have them get these people into a HUD Home. 1-You have staff in place 2- Any home lived in is an improvement compared to an empty home. 3- a percentage of people would become acclimated to that community and stay in the home in which case a Fannie Mae or other loan would be available to finance that home. 4. This would be a simple solution instead of trailers there were an estimated 374,000 hurricane Katrina refugees in shelters, hotels, homes and other housing in 34 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Red Cross and state relief officials. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0912/p01s01-ussc.html 1,433,646 home available to date http://www.foreclosure. Lets understand the cost starting $105 billion . So not only am I a bleeding heart but anemic as well. Lets face facts Katrina is not a one time deal. Its coming back. Just a question of when. Maybe we can use an infrastructure we already have in place to solve the problem or does that make too much sense.

Buying a house, have given earnest check that has not been cashed yet? I am in the process of buying a house. It is a foreclosure and a realty company is representing Fannie Mae and has it listed. "As Is" During the first contract the house inspection was put off once for a quality control check of the records. I re-scheduled my inspector, then I paid $125.00 to have the water turned on (that was part of the deal as the house was winterized, and was to be re-winterized following inspection) The house was scheduled to be inspected on the 14th of February. Then at 3:30 p,m, on Friday the 13th I get a call that the water was turned on a quickly shut off due to a water leak that was caused by freezing weather because they winterized late (They needed to have legal access to the house before going in to winterize and there was freezing weather before they could do so) At this point in order to proceed I had to cancel the contract as I had till 5 p.m. or I would stand the chance of loseing my earnest money. I also had to call off my house inspector again. I went back to the house with my realtor that following Monday only to find out that it was a minor elbow on a basement pipe that had froze that was adjacent to an exterior wall, really no big deal. On Tuesday I resubmitted my original offer and asked that it simply (the leak) be repaired and the I had to start the process all over. In the maentime the listing agent knew I was re-submitting my offer due to a misunderstanding as to what the damage was as they gave me only an hour and a half to make a decision while I was at work and could not leave before 5 p.m. to go out and look at it. I resubmitted my original offer, only to find that he relisted the house on MLS, lowered the price by $7,100 dollars and put flyers in the box reflecting such a price the very same day he got my resubmitted offer, with the same MLS listing number. They still have my earnest money check and I have been told my offer was sent to Fannie Mae again and is in process. I expected an answer by Friday, but was told it would maybe come Monday. My wife and I really want this house and are all approved and ready to still close on the 12th of March as was the original date to close and the listing agent says that when we pulled out it put him in a bad situation, I say it has been them doing so. What are the thoughts out there?

I need a mortgage lender in Missouri!? We are looking to buy a home and we have a lender but would like to know about other options without having my credit ran all over the place. We had a bankruptcy discharged in jan/03 and a foreclosure in june/03. Our credit score ranges from 618 to 545-there is a discrepency with this particular credit company and I have papers to prove it. We will be financing around $170,000 and my current lender is offering me 7.25 interest rate with closing costs around $3500 and no money down with a Fannie Mae loan. Any suggestions or offers?

Who is really behind the sub-prime mortgage bailout,? If you thought Hillary Clinton’s government takeover plan for health care was bad, wait ‘til you see what she has in store for the housing sector. As always with the Clintons, the market is the problem and Big Nanny is the solution. Unfortunately for taxpayers, Hillary has bipartisan company in the Bush administration on this issue. Their election season prescription? Rewarding bad behavior. Punishing responsible behavior. Doing more harm than good. In case you’ve been living in a cave, there’s a painful credit crunch underway. The culprit is the subprime mortgage — a species of risky home loans to buyers with dubious credit and income. Cash-rich lenders doled out the subprimes hoping rising home prices would compensate for any failed bets. But when housing prices started plummeting and interest rates began rising, many borrowers started defaulting. Insolvency looms for countless lenders. Instead of letting lenders and subprime mortgage-holders suffer the consequences of their actions, politicians and grievance-mongers are riding to the supposed rescue. In a supreme irony, the very same champions of the needy in the Democrat party who complain constantly about the lack of “affordable housing” are now fighting tooth and nail to keep housing prices high. To “cure” the housing crisis, Hillary wants a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures for homeowners who default on subprimes. In addition, she wants a five-year freeze on the monthly rate for subprime adjustable mortgages. While she demonizes lenders as predatory out of one side of her mouth, the other side of her mouth is floating legislation to protect lenders from lawsuits and let them convert certain mortgages into “stable, affordable loans.” On top of all that federal meddling, she proposes a $5 billion — yes, that’s “billion” with a “b” — fund to “help communities suffering from high rates of foreclosures.” Jesse Jackson is also stirring the pot. With subprime victim sob stories flooding the news and anecdotes of minority homeowners in trouble, there’s no way the shakedown king could stay away. But the subprime mess isn’t a result of ruthless racial discrimination. If anything, it’s the result of too little discrimination by lenders too willing and eager to sign on people who had no business taking on mortgages. (And you know Jesse Jackson would be screaming either way. The lenders are damned if they lend and damned if they don’t.) Let’s boil this down to fundamentals: Why should the rest of us have to shoulder the burden because some buyers made poor choices, overextended themselves, and bought more house than they could afford? Why should other business owners bear the costs of lenders’ failed bets? And why are falling home prices such a catastrophe to be “fixed” in the first place? Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub put it well: “It is great news when the price of energy, food, transportation, health care and consumer electronics drops. But for some reason it is bad news when the price of shelter drops. . . . Shouldn’t we be seeing stories filled with anecdotes about formerly priced-out middle-income families finally getting their chance at the American Dream?” There’s another side of the housing crunch equation that’s not making it onto the newspaper front pages and presidential campaign websites. “For every house sold because the buyer couldn’t make the payments,” Weintraub notes, “there is a buyer on the other end of that transaction who got a good deal. And for every foreclosure, there are probably 10 buyers of nearby homes who benefited from the general easing of house-price pressure.” Bingo. Fiscal conservatives ought to be balking at HillaryCare for housing. But President Bush’s treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, is singing a similar tune. He proposed a new safety net to stem the tide of home foreclosures through a bailout plan for homeowners with bad credit scores. They’d be eligible for relief from paying hundreds of dollars in additional monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset. Those who have been responsible enough to maintain good credit, however, will be out of luck. In addition, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has proposed that government-sponsored mortgage enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be allowed to raise their loan limits and have their debt explicitly guaranteed by the public dole. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are colluding to protect the reckless and keep home prices high on the backs of prudent taxpayers. Who’ll bail us out from this perversion of the American Dream?

What will Obama do for those that might face foreclosure? Last night, McCain said he would direct the treasury secretary to buy mortgages for those facing foreclosure and renogotiate their loan so they might stay in their home. Obama reject this plan, read about it here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_el_pr/obama The following is particularly disturbing: "Obama economic adviser Jason Furman said in a statement. "The biggest beneficiaries of this plan will be the same financial institutions that got us into this mess, some of whom even committed fraud."" Note that most of those companies that might have committed fraud also donated tons of money to Obama's campaign. I'm talking about AIG, Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae and Freddie Max (Obama is 2nd largest recipient in history, $120K in 3 years time for F & F. McCain has $26K over 26 years). Remember Enron? They did the same thing... collapsed their company with bad investments, the CEOs strapped on the golden parachute and donated tons of money to Bush right before they left. It appears Obama has taken a play out of Bush's book. "McCain's proposal would devote nearly half the $700 billion from the recent financial rescue package to buying troubled mortgages directly, rather than indirectly aiding the nation's financial markets. The government would buy distressed home loans at their face value, said campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. Then it would pay the difference between a mortgage's original value and its renegotiated, lower value." Obama wants the money to go right to these companies that donated to him. Does that sound like change you can believe in? Does that sound like genuine concern for Main Street? Or Wall Street?

karen tumulty should be nominated for the best jounalism 2008? How to Pick a Veep Jun. 23, 2008 | By KAREN TUMULTY ...to picking vice-presidential nominees...of Vice President should tell...three-star running mates. The right... 1591 words | view cover So who might be pizazz choices for this year's contenders? McCain might turn to his longtime hero Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. =========================================== One of the stranger ironies the Constitution has bestowed on American politics is this: some 50 million people just finished choosing the parties' two nominees in a grueling, yearlong primary campaign that cost millions of dollars and captivated the world. But when it comes to picking vice-presidential nominees, only two people on the planet get a vote: John McCain and Barack Obama. Between an explosion of democracy in the spring and an even bigger explosion of self-determination in the fall is a brief interlude of, well, something that Vladimir Putin could probably live with. Related Articles The Keys to McCain’s VP Pick When you are running for President, you can’t exactly just have a few friends over on the weekend, e... Wooing New Hampshire’s Undeclared The guy in the purple "I’m a health care voter" shirt stands up to ask a question at a John McCain t... Romney Frees McCain for New Fight When Mitt Romney stepped forward to announce his endorsement of former rival John McCain, the former... McCain: Frail with the Far Right John McCain emerged from Super Tuesday the undisputed heavyweight in the fight for the Republican pr... Everyone knows that the main qualification for the vice presidency is being ready, at a moment's notice, to step into the most powerful job in the world. But what qualifies you to do the job and what qualifies you to get the job may involve two completely different calculations. Both McCain and Obama have their selection committees already at work scouring candidates' financial and personal backgrounds, voting records and public statements. In a sudden setback that could slow the Democratic nominee's search, Obama lost his top Veep hunter, Jim Johnson, after the former Fannie Mae executive came under scrutiny for accepting preferential mortgages from a lender linked to the foreclosure crisis. Both camps will finish their work by early August, if not sooner. When they do, the choice of Vice President should tell us something — maybe a lot — about how McCain and Obama think and how they could run the government. There are a lot of ways to choose a Vice President, and each comes with risks. Here are five of the most reliable: 1. Play to Your Strength Perhaps the fastest way to send a message about who you are is to pick someone who appears to be ... just like you. In 1992, Bill Clinton picked another Southern baby boomer with a moderate record and a full head of hair. Then Clinton, Al Gore and their wives took a bus trip that looked like a rolling scene from The Big Chill. Picking Gore reinforced Clinton's claim to be part of a new generation of Democratic pols, liberated from the tired (and losing) politics of the past. If McCain were to take a similar approach, he might pick a No. 2 who has strong national-security credentials or another maverick who defies party labels — perhaps someone like independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. By this standard, Obama might opt for a partner who is young and charismatic and also breaks a historic barrier of race or gender — perhaps Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius — or one who transcends partisan politics, like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. 2. Look at the Map An old-fashioned road atlas is a good Michelin guide for three-star running mates. The right choice can add balance to a nominee whose roots may seem a tad too effete to go over well in the heartland — or add some coastal glitz to a rural candidate's prairie-flat steadiness. As it happens, the last two candidates to make their picks with geography clearly in mind — John Kennedy in 1960 and Michael Dukakis in 1988 — were both from Massachusetts. And they both picked Texas Senators — Lyndon Johnson and Lloyd Bentsen — for the second spot on their ticket. More narrowly, the map can help a nominee make a play for a state that is crucial in November, though that is never a sure bet. Kennedy, with Johnson as his running mate, squeezed by Nixon to win Texas with a margin of merely 46,000 votes, in what turned out to be one of the closest elections in American history. But Dukakis got swamped in the Lone Star State, where Bentsen's considerable popularity was no match for the thrill of having another Texan, George H.W. Bush, in the Oval Office. This year, given the closeness of the race and the importance of winning a few battleground states, McCain and Obama will keep at least one eye on the Electoral College map right through November. That means Obama will be considering choices like Ohio governor Ted Strickland (though Strickland says he would turn down the offer) or one of three possibilities from Virginia — Governor Tim Kaine, former governor Mark Warner or Senator Jim Webb. Or perhaps a Westerner like Montana governor Brian Schweitzer. McCain might get an Electoral College boost by picking Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Pennsylvania's ex-governor Tom Ridge or former rival Mitt Romney, who has family roots in pivotal Michigan. 3. Shore Up Your Weak Side On the other hand, the nominee might need a partner who compensates for his vulnerabilities or perceived weaknesses. That was plainly what George W. Bush had in mind in 2000 when he picked Dick Cheney, a seasoned Washington insider with a long foreign policy résumé (who also happened to be heading up Bush's vice-presidential-selection process). And Gore knew that in picking Lieberman, who had been one of Bill Clinton's harshest Democratic critics during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he was buying some distance from the incumbent Commander in Chief. In McCain's case, any doubts that voters have about electing a 72-year-old President might be allayed if he tapped someone far younger. And it wouldn't hurt, in a year when gasoline prices and financial jitters have moved past the Iraq war to the top of voter concerns, to look for a sidekick who is more comfortable than McCain is with economic policy. It may well turn out to be someone about whom the conservative base, which is a little leery of McCain, is more enthusiastic. Some possibilities the two might want to consider as hedges against their shortcomings: McCain could pick Romney or Pawlenty, both of whom have executive experience and relative youth, or perhaps an economic-policy expert like former Ohio Congressman Rob Portman, who served as both budget chief and trade representative for Bush. Obama, however, might want to address concerns about his youth and inexperience by picking a running mate who is older and has strong national-security credentials. He could turn to seasoned, silver-haired foreign policy experts like Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden or former Senate Armed Services chairman Sam Nunn. Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell or former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle would add some experience as well. 4. Hug Your Rival Even after a long, hard primary fight (and sometimes because of it), the ultimate winner almost always has to consider bringing the loser aboard the ticket. That's what Ronald Reagan did when he picked George H.W. Bush in 1980 and how John Kerry came to choose John Edwards in 2004. Sometimes party unity simply demands it. "We ended up with the obvious choice," says adviser Bob Shrum of Kerry's decision to tap Edwards. "People in the party overwhelmingly wanted him." Then again, a former adversary can have extra baggage. For one thing, there will be lingering tensions and suspicions that former rivals still harbor ambitions of their own. The other party is certain to dredge up every damaging sound bite — "Voodoo economics!" — that your former rival hurled in your direction back in February. These worries are usually overcome. Already it's hard to miss the steady thaw in McCain's once frosty relationship with Romney as the former Massachusetts governor throws himself — and his formidable fund-raising operation — into campaigning for the man who beat him. And Hillary Clinton's supporters — starting with her husband — are letting it be known that they expect Obama to give her serious consideration. 5. Hire Some Pizazz Some nominees find themselves in need of excitement. That explains why Walter Mondale tapped Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman on a national ticket, in 1984. "This is an exciting choice," he said at the time. Within weeks, Mondale did not see it that way. Given their difficult history of tangling over just about everything, hardly anyone would have expected Bob Dole to pick Jack Kemp as his running mate in 1996 — least of all Kemp. As little as three weeks before he was selected, recalls Dole's campaign manager, Scott Reed, Kemp was grumbling in GOP circles that he hadn't been given a speaking spot at the party's convention. So why did Dole pick him? "We were going for oxygen, heat and energy," Reed says. "We went through the traditional list, and we just weren't happy with what we were coming up with." Kemp later turned out to be far more complicated a partner than Dole or Reed had imagined. So who might be pizazz choices for this year's contenders? McCain might turn to his longtime hero Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Excitement is hardly what Obama needs, but he could pick a woman, such as Sebelius or Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, who might force McCain to spend more time in his otherwise safe home state. But if you venture too far out of the box, voters will scratch their heads sooner or later — and eventually you might too. George H.W. Bush seems to have entered his Veep wish list into one of those dating computers back in 1988. That year he stunned nearly all his advisers when he tapped someone whose Midwestern roots were an antidote to his privileged Kennebunkport background, who was young to his old, who could balance his moderation with a dose of conservatism, and came up with Dan Quayle. The ticket beat the Democrats that fall, but by 1992 even Bush was trying to nudge him off the ticket. The ploy failed. Which is a reminder that however you choose a running mate, another rule will always apply: hard as it is to find a good one, it is sometimes harder to get rid of a bad one.

Are Bush/McCain closet Socialists? AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac......all government owned and operated now. I thought these guys believed in the free market. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps or get eaten by the sharks type stuff. I guess that only applies to the families that lose their home to foreclosure, and not the Wall Street fat cats. What hypocrites.

Mortgage refinancing.? My credit the past few years improved. Doubled my income by graduating nursing school, have a small inheritance with which I have cleared up ALL old debt and am adding on to my house. I was stuck with $300/month PMI when I bought the place. I have 36% EQUITY in the house and am paying cash for a $25,000 addition.. As of this moment, I have no other debt. I have not been late in 13 months. In the past two years, I was 60-90 days late most of the first part and then when my mom died I was sidetracked and went a few days over -- triggering the 'start' of foreclosure. Literally, my payment was in the mail when they officially started the paperwork. So far I've only checked with my current company, they say they'd love to refinance but Fannie Mae won't approve it. I have to be 2 years outside forclosure. Any suggestions? I've worked so hard I shouldn't have to suck up this PMI another 10 months, there's so much I want to do to make this house a home. Can I CALL Fannie Mae? Thanks, yes I tried that by the form on their webpage and they you can't be 60 days late within 2 years ... refused on that basis. I think maybe I just need to find a real person to talk to, someone with the company must be able to help.

What are the secondary causes of the subprime loan issue.? The garbage on the web, especially blogging by uneducated morons campaigning for their political parties and candidates is overwhelming. This is especially true, as usual of democrats. The propaganda disseminated by Liberal Democrats is incredible. Getting past that is really difficult, but, I have found a few threads that are really interesting. In 2004 Greenspan warned about the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2004/20040224/ The governor of Illinois shot Greenspan down. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040521/default.htm Fannie Mae vomited garbage about how great they were including mentioning that they were selected by Fortune as one of the best managed corporations. http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/16CorpGovAmendKorologos.pdf Greenspan came back in 2005 with a discussion about credit.http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/speeches/2005/20050408/default.htm If you have a home you know that getting a mortgage and making payments really kicks your credit rating up and you get flooded with offers, most from credit predators. My preliminary assessment is that predatory subprime lenders targeted people who then made payments, established better credit and became the victims of predatory credit card lenders. This began coming to a head in 2003 to 2005. The eventual response of the Bush admin was to lobby for bankruptcy law changes which appears to have made the whole mess worse. Now before all you liberal demophytes who are incapable of research jump on this issue remember that Dems were talking about how stable the credit markets, particularly Fannie May and Freddie Mac were. Dems blocked any other legislation. McCain voted for the Bankruptcy law and Obama voted against it, do your own research for those links. My preliminary assessment is that essentially the changes in Bankruptcy laws were meant to stabilize the credit markets, but, what they did was encourage predatory credit companies to further target people with subprime mortgages. In my opinion the extended credit and changes in bankruptcy laws are secondary causes to the current crisis. Too much credit and reduced ability to structure debt forced people into mortgage foreclosure which caused the crash. FYI, it looks like 40% of the recipients of these predatory lending practices were new (illiterate)college grads. You know, the Obama supporters. Preliminary results are this group got the most credit, mismanaged money and screwed up the worst. Do your own research. Anyone else researching the issue finding similar data or have different well researched and educated opinions on the subject? Nunya, once again your ridiculously uneducated blather is worthless. The Democratic party has a history of propaganda going back to the bigot and NAZI supporting William Randolph Hearst (D). The Democrats are a genocidal political party and I have posted more than enough easily to research data to prove that beyond a doubt. If you had actually read any of my posts on this subject you would know that I have identified predatory mortgage brokers specifically who essentially conned both borrowers and underwriters.....wasting time on facts with you is useless. There are some very good answers and I appreciate them. The situation is a set of dominoes and I am trying to identify the dominoes. Thanks for those who helped.

Recession : With War or Without it ? Isrel vrs Iran// War - and US?? Recession: With War or Without It? by Gary North by Gary North DIGG THIS The world's economy has been in growth mode at least since 1991. China has been in growth mode since 1979. The American economy had a sharp recession in 1991. Asia had a financial crisis in 1998. America had a very brief, very shallow recession in 2001. The Federal Reserve System pumped in money at an accelerating rate after mid-2000 through 2004, and did not go to tight money until the month Bernanke took over: February 2006. Inflation overcame the recession of 2001, and it overcame the crisis of 9/11, but it created the housing bubble and the commodity bubble. The housing bubble has popped. This is going to take the price of housing in the United States lower than it is today. I think 20% lower is a conservative figure. We are nowhere near the end of this popped bubble. The commodity bubble is still in full force. It is a worldwide bubble. The price of energy and the price of rice and other food commodities have received most of the attention. Federal Reserve policy since early 2006 has been one of relatively stable money. There is a lot of chatter to the contrary, but if we look at the two most significant monetary indicators, the adjusted monetary base and M1, we see that there has been very little growth in either. This is why the United States is now either in a recession or is facing one in the next few months. When a period of monetary inflation ends, economies go into recession. The American economy is slowing down, and it will continue to slow down. Both China and India have expanded their money supplies dramatically for a decade. Both countries are now facing a crisis of rising prices. Price inflation is a major threat to the continued prosperity of both countries. China's government has begun to impose selective price controls. This is creating shortages and production bottlenecks. India's government is considering doing the same thing. What both governments need to do is to tell their central banks to cease buying all government debt and all assets of any kind. The central banks need to stop inflating the money supply. But if the banks do this, both countries will experience major recessions. The governments do not want to have major recessions, but they also do not want to experience the effects of monetary inflation: price inflation. So, both of them are tempted to go back to the traditional policy of imposing price controls. This always creates shortages, and it always reduces the rate of growth of the economy. China and India are trapped. AN INTERNATIONAL TRAP The United States is in the same trap. The headlines scream of the skyrocketing costs of energy and food, but the broader consumer price indexes indicate slow increases: maybe 3% a year. This is because families are readjusting their budgets. As the prices of gasoline and food rise, families are forced to cut back expenditures in other areas. So, the general price indexes are not rising dramatically, but families are struggling with their budgets. This struggle will get much worse this winter, when the price of heating oil rises. This will exacerbate the existing economic slowdown. Furthermore, the rising price of oil means a rising balance of payments deficit for the United States. Oil-exporting countries are the main beneficiaries of the rising price of oil. This means that foreign sellers of oil will get the lion's share of the increase of the price of oil. American producers will pay for the prosperity of the oil exporting countries. They will pay in the form of reduced demand for their products. The world is facing simultaneous recession. Meanwhile, the American financial system has absorbed hundreds of billions of dollars of IOUs from home buyers who cannot possibly pay off their debts. They are in the process of defaulting to the lenders. This has created a crisis for America's largest banks, and for several major European banks. We all know the story by now, but psychologically, most Americans have not adjusted to the new economic reality. Most investors have not adjusted. Yes, the American stock market is down by 20% since last October. But still they think a recovery is just around the corner. The media keep saying this. American investors still have faith that the economy is essentially healthy, that there will not be a continuing fall in the stock market, and that the economy will not go into recession and stay in the recession for two or more years. So far, I am giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy. Why is this good news? Because this recession is going to put a cap on the rising cost of energy. Commodity prices will fall during the recession; this includes the price of oil. NO MORE FISCAL WIGGLE ROOM Americans have steadily stopped saving over the last 28 years. In 1981, they saved over 11% of their discretionary income. Today, they save nothing. They are now in full spending mode. They have borrowed money against their future income, against their home equity, and on simple promises to pay (signature loans: credit cards). They have stretched themselves thin with respect to debt. If oil goes to $400 a barrel, or $500 a barrel, and stays there for a year, American consumers will be in panic mode. They will have to cut their budgets, and they have forgotten how to cut their budgets. They have forgotten how to save. The strategy of the optimists is to tell us that the worst is over economically. This is the government's official position. Chairman Ben Bernanke does not say this. He keeps hinting of more trouble to come. He keeps telling us that the Federal Reserve System is monitoring events. He keeps implying that there is some sort of rabbit still remaining in the Federal Reserve System's hat which they can pull out if the banking system moves into paralysis mode. But he doesn't tell us what these rabbits are, or under what conditions the FED will pull them out of its hat. The good news regarding the economy in general is not backed up by anything specific. The government tells us that the worst is over, but there are almost no indications that the worst is over. The housing market is still in decline. Foreclosures are still rising rapidly. The lenders are not selling foreclosed properties at market prices. Instead, they keep buying back the properties. There is a growing inventory of unsold properties on the books of the lenders. Meanwhile the two major sources of liquidity for the housing market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are verging on bankruptcy. On Wednesday, July 9, the stock price of Freddie Mac dropped by 23%. Yet its stock price was down over 50% since January. These two stocks have continued to fall. Everywhere we look on the horizon of the domestic economy, there is bad news. There is no sector of the economy that is improving, unless it is heavily funded by the Federal government. Health care has not slumped, because health care as funded by Medicare and other state and local government programs. This means that the Federal deficit is going to get worse in any recession. Medicare and Social Security are non-discretionary spending items. The revenues will fall. So, the supposed strength sectors of the economy are in fact guarantees of a government fiscal crisis. If the general economy slumps, the Federal deficit is likely to go over $500 billion a year. When the recession hits, commodity prices will fall. If the recession does not hit, commodity prices will continue to rise. But rising commodity prices will force bankruptcies in those firms that are not in a position to pass on increased costs to their consumers. This means industries associated with discretionary spending. If your company is dependent upon discretionary spending by the public, your job is at risk. If the recession hits, your company will suffer. If the recession doesn't hit, rising commodity prices will squeeze your company. Consumers will spend their money for gasoline and heating oil, not on the products or services your company produces. The boom economy has not been based primarily on non-discretionary income. The boom has come at the margin: those areas of the economy in which consumers do have the option of spending their money rather than saving it. So far, I have been giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy. THE BAD NEWS The bad news is that the State of Israel is increasingly likely to launch an air strike on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities. I have discussed this before. If this happens, the price of oil will skyrocket. This will force massive readjustments of family budgets in every country on a permanent basis. This is going to force producers to fire people out of fear of bankruptcy. Consumers are going to stop buying much in the area of discretionary income. That is, those items that can be cut back will be cut back. This could mean you. If the State of Israel launches an attack on Iran, the economic news will get really bad really fast all over the world. So, the most important question today is whether or not the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran. From an economic standpoint, this is the crucial question. Here, too, the mainstream media have generally promoted optimism. They suggest that the Israelis will not attack Iran. The problem is, they can't point to anything specific that officials in the State of Israel have said that indicates that there will not be an attack. On the contrary, officials there keep saying "no comment." Something else is really ominous. The political leaders in the countries over which Israeli bombers will have to fly are deadly silent. They are not telling Israel in full public view that if Israel sends planes over their airspace, they will go to war with Israel. They are not saying that they are preparing right now to shoot down every Israeli plane that flies over their airspace. They are saying nothing. Why? I think the main reason is that they will not back up their words with deeds. They will not shoot down Israeli planes. They say nothing in public because they will do nothing if the overflights take place. If they go public with bellicose threats today, their own people will turn on them if they fail to back up their words with deeds if the flights take place. "You said you would do something. You did nothing. Get out!" This could start internal revolutions in the overflown countries. Silence is golden. It's yellow, but it's golden. This tells me that the overflight countries' leaders think the attack may take place. They would prefer to be accused of having been caught flat-footed by the Israeli Air Force than unwilling to back up a threat. American officials are offering the bipartisan line: "We must settle this through diplomacy." (To which Israeli government officials can respond, Tonto-like: "Who you mean we, paleface?") They are not saying anything about what sanctions against the State of Israel that America will impose as soon as Israeli jets bomb Iran. That is because there will be no such sanctions. Admiral Mullen supposedly sent Israel a statement in early July saying that the United States has not issued a green light for an Israeli attack on Iran. This supposedly means something important in itself. It means nothing in itself. What it means is the United States has not issued a red light against an Israeli attack on Iran. This means that there is no stop sign. There is no red light, so the absence of a green light means nothing. Of course no one has said that the United States will help Israel in such an attack. So what? Israeli officials are not asking for a public offer of American help. If the United States and those governments over which the Israeli Air Force must fly are not issuing public statements at this time warning that there will be significant negative sanctions imposed on the State of Israel as soon as the attack is launched, then this is an implied green light. Do we imagine that senior decision-makers in the Israeli government care a whit about the lack of an official American green light to their attack on Iran? They are as unconcerned about the lack of a green light as Iran is unconcerned about President Bush's threat of sanctions if Iran does not comply with all requirements announced by the Bush administration. Iran knows what Israel knows: the Bush administration is terminal. It will end on January 20, 2009. It has no teeth. Lame ducks don't bite. They merely squawk. Why should we think that either Iran or Israel gives a fig about the red light/green light debate? American pundits may think this debate is important, but why should anyone with common sense think it's important? TIMETABLES Iraq has announced that the United States must pull out its troops. It is demanding dates for this withdrawal. The Bush administration is pooh-poohing all this, and will not under any circumstances announce such a timetable, but so what? There is a timetable for the Bush administration's withdrawal: January 20, 2009. This means that the United States is going to be pressured by Iraq's government to leave Iraq from now on. Most of the troops will be forced to leave Iraq unless things change dramatically. Then what will be done with the 14 major military bases that have been built? As the pressure increases to force us to leave Iraq, and as the pressure from the Taliban increases in Afghanistan, and as the pressure from voters increases to get our troops out of both countries, and as the likelihood of the election of Obama increases, decision-makers in the State of Israel are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If the United States pulls out of the region, the State of Israel will be left high and dry. But there is another possible scenario. If Iran's surrogate Shia forces in the region take on the United States troops in reaction to an Israeli attack on Iran, American public opinion will swing in favor of keeping the troops there, no matter what. "Who do those Iranians think they are? We issued no green light to the Israelis. It's not our fault." If Iran begins to supply weapons to Shia forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American death rate goes up, then American voters will switch back to a pro-war position. At least, this is a possibility. Americans do not like to be pushed around. Any escalation of war in the region will create havoc for the supply of oil. The world economy is moving into recession already; it may go into a true depression if oil goes to $500 and stays there. So, the stakes are enormous. The outcome is no longer in the hands of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any of the other outsiders to the Middle East. The outcome, or at least the trigger, is completely in the hands of the decision-makers in the State of Israel. They hold the gun. Unless the United States and Western Europe tell the decision-makers in the State of Israel that Europe and the United States will impose significant negative sanctions after an attack on Iran, then decision-makers there are going to make a decision based on the self-interest of the ruling party, not the self-interest of American or European voters. They are going to take care of their perceived problem, exactly as we would expect any other national political leaders would take care of their problem. That's why all talk about war being a threat to the self-interest of the whole makes sense only if the Israelis conclude that the economic crisis will be so severe that it will take them down in the whirlpool of economic collapse. They are not afraid of military retaliation from Iran. They are also not afraid of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any other coalition that does not have the backbone to say in advance that there will be major sanctions placed on the State of Israel if there is an attack on Iran. This is why I am concerned about the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran. I am in no way calmed by statements attributed to Admiral Mullen. When Admiral Mullen holds a press conference and says publicly that there is no green light for an attack by the Israeli Air Force on Iran, and that any flyover of Iraq by Israeli planes will lead to shoot downs of Israeli planes by American planes, then I will stop worrying about the threat of an attack on Iran by the Israeli Air Force. How likely do you think such a press conference is? We must face reality: the decision to go to war with Iran is 100% in the hands of Israeli decision-makers. It is not in the hands of the United States, Europe, or Asia. In other words, the economic fate of the West over the next decade is now in the hands of decision-makers who are concerned about the long-term survival of their own country. They are concerned because they do not want to have Iran in the possession of nuclear weapons. Both candidates for President have said the same thing. We have seen saber-rattling by the Iranians with the film-doctored test of the missiles this week. These missiles are militarily useless as weapons against the Israelis. They are as irrelevant militarily as Germany's V-2 missiles were in 1945. They cannot inflict enough damage to make a difference, unless they are used against Saudi Arabian oil fields. But, if they had a nuclear warhead, that would make all the difference. The Israelis know this. So, they are going to make their decision in terms of this long-term threat. The main inhibition against an attack is the possible collapse of the Western economy, which buys Israeli-produced goods. This threat may be sufficient to keep them from attacking. I dearly hope that it is. But it is naïve to believe that they are going to make their decision because of worries about whether Admiral Mullen has issued a green light or not. CONCLUSION When you invest your money, do not ignore the worst-case scenario. Set aside some of your money on the assumption that the worst-case will come true. This is what any military strategist does. He makes his decisions in terms of what the enemy can do, not what it would be convenient for the enemy to do. I suggest that you be aware of this threat. I suggest that you sit down with the family budget and outline what your response would be if the price of gasoline were $10 a gallon or $15 a gallon or $20 a gallon. What would you do? I know what you would do. You would drive less. Ignore the happy-face assessments of the geopolitical strategists. Ignore the happy-face assessment of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry "Goldman Sachs" Paulson. These assessments are being issued to keep panic from spreading. I am doing my best to encourage people to take rational steps with some of their liquid assets: to hedge themselves against the possibility that there will be an attack on Iran before January 20, 2009. This doesn't mean that I think such an attack is a sure thing. Decision-makers in the State of Israel are going to have to live with $400 oil, just like all the rest of us. They may decide that this risk is too great. They may decide to put up with the threat of a future nuclear-armed Iran. I won't bet all of my money on this. I don't think you should either. July 12, 2008 Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.

Recession : With War or Without it ? Isrel vrs Iran// War - and US?? Recession: With War or Without It? by Gary North by Gary North DIGG THIS The world's economy has been in growth mode at least since 1991. China has been in growth mode since 1979. The American economy had a sharp recession in 1991. Asia had a financial crisis in 1998. America had a very brief, very shallow recession in 2001. The Federal Reserve System pumped in money at an accelerating rate after mid-2000 through 2004, and did not go to tight money until the month Bernanke took over: February 2006. Inflation overcame the recession of 2001, and it overcame the crisis of 9/11, but it created the housing bubble and the commodity bubble. The housing bubble has popped. This is going to take the price of housing in the United States lower than it is today. I think 20% lower is a conservative figure. We are nowhere near the end of this popped bubble. The commodity bubble is still in full force. It is a worldwide bubble. The price of energy and the price of rice and other food commodities have received most of the attention. Federal Reserve policy since early 2006 has been one of relatively stable money. There is a lot of chatter to the contrary, but if we look at the two most significant monetary indicators, the adjusted monetary base and M1, we see that there has been very little growth in either. This is why the United States is now either in a recession or is facing one in the next few months. When a period of monetary inflation ends, economies go into recession. The American economy is slowing down, and it will continue to slow down. Both China and India have expanded their money supplies dramatically for a decade. Both countries are now facing a crisis of rising prices. Price inflation is a major threat to the continued prosperity of both countries. China's government has begun to impose selective price controls. This is creating shortages and production bottlenecks. India's government is considering doing the same thing. What both governments need to do is to tell their central banks to cease buying all government debt and all assets of any kind. The central banks need to stop inflating the money supply. But if the banks do this, both countries will experience major recessions. The governments do not want to have major recessions, but they also do not want to experience the effects of monetary inflation: price inflation. So, both of them are tempted to go back to the traditional policy of imposing price controls. This always creates shortages, and it always reduces the rate of growth of the economy. China and India are trapped. AN INTERNATIONAL TRAP The United States is in the same trap. The headlines scream of the skyrocketing costs of energy and food, but the broader consumer price indexes indicate slow increases: maybe 3% a year. This is because families are readjusting their budgets. As the prices of gasoline and food rise, families are forced to cut back expenditures in other areas. So, the general price indexes are not rising dramatically, but families are struggling with their budgets. This struggle will get much worse this winter, when the price of heating oil rises. This will exacerbate the existing economic slowdown. Furthermore, the rising price of oil means a rising balance of payments deficit for the United States. Oil-exporting countries are the main beneficiaries of the rising price of oil. This means that foreign sellers of oil will get the lion's share of the increase of the price of oil. American producers will pay for the prosperity of the oil exporting countries. They will pay in the form of reduced demand for their products. The world is facing simultaneous recession. Meanwhile, the American financial system has absorbed hundreds of billions of dollars of IOUs from home buyers who cannot possibly pay off their debts. They are in the process of defaulting to the lenders. This has created a crisis for America's largest banks, and for several major European banks. We all know the story by now, but psychologically, most Americans have not adjusted to the new economic reality. Most investors have not adjusted. Yes, the American stock market is down by 20% since last October. But still they think a recovery is just around the corner. The media keep saying this. American investors still have faith that the economy is essentially healthy, that there will not be a continuing fall in the stock market, and that the economy will not go into recession and stay in the recession for two or more years. So far, I am giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy. Why is this good news? Because this recession is going to put a cap on the rising cost of energy. Commodity prices will fall during the recession; this includes the price of oil. NO MORE FISCAL WIGGLE ROOM Americans have steadily stopped saving over the last 28 years. In 1981, they saved over 11% of their discretionary income. Today, they save nothing. They are now in full spending mode. They have borrowed money against their future income, against their home equity, and on simple promises to pay (signature loans: credit cards). They have stretched themselves thin with respect to debt. If oil goes to $400 a barrel, or $500 a barrel, and stays there for a year, American consumers will be in panic mode. They will have to cut their budgets, and they have forgotten how to cut their budgets. They have forgotten how to save. The strategy of the optimists is to tell us that the worst is over economically. This is the government's official position. Chairman Ben Bernanke does not say this. He keeps hinting of more trouble to come. He keeps telling us that the Federal Reserve System is monitoring events. He keeps implying that there is some sort of rabbit still remaining in the Federal Reserve System's hat which they can pull out if the banking system moves into paralysis mode. But he doesn't tell us what these rabbits are, or under what conditions the FED will pull them out of its hat. The good news regarding the economy in general is not backed up by anything specific. The government tells us that the worst is over, but there are almost no indications that the worst is over. The housing market is still in decline. Foreclosures are still rising rapidly. The lenders are not selling foreclosed properties at market prices. Instead, they keep buying back the properties. There is a growing inventory of unsold properties on the books of the lenders. Meanwhile the two major sources of liquidity for the housing market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are verging on bankruptcy. On Wednesday, July 9, the stock price of Freddie Mac dropped by 23%. Yet its stock price was down over 50% since January. These two stocks have continued to fall. Everywhere we look on the horizon of the domestic economy, there is bad news. There is no sector of the economy that is improving, unless it is heavily funded by the Federal government. Health care has not slumped, because health care as funded by Medicare and other state and local government programs. This means that the Federal deficit is going to get worse in any recession. Medicare and Social Security are non-discretionary spending items. The revenues will fall. So, the supposed strength sectors of the economy are in fact guarantees of a government fiscal crisis. If the general economy slumps, the Federal deficit is likely to go over $500 billion a year. When the recession hits, commodity prices will fall. If the recession does not hit, commodity prices will continue to rise. But rising commodity prices will force bankruptcies in those firms that are not in a position to pass on increased costs to their consumers. This means industries associated with discretionary spending. If your company is dependent upon discretionary spending by the public, your job is at risk. If the recession hits, your company will suffer. If the recession doesn't hit, rising commodity prices will squeeze your company. Consumers will spend their money for gasoline and heating oil, not on the products or services your company produces. The boom economy has not been based primarily on non-discretionary income. The boom has come at the margin: those areas of the economy in which consumers do have the option of spending their money rather than saving it. So far, I have been giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy. THE BAD NEWS The bad news is that the State of Israel is increasingly likely to launch an air strike on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities. I have discussed this before. If this happens, the price of oil will skyrocket. This will force massive readjustments of family budgets in every country on a permanent basis. This is going to force producers to fire people out of fear of bankruptcy. Consumers are going to stop buying much in the area of discretionary income. That is, those items that can be cut back will be cut back. This could mean you. If the State of Israel launches an attack on Iran, the economic news will get really bad really fast all over the world. So, the most important question today is whether or not the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran. From an economic standpoint, this is the crucial question. Here, too, the mainstream media have generally promoted optimism. They suggest that the Israelis will not attack Iran. The problem is, they can't point to anything specific that officials in the State of Israel have said that indicates that there will not be an attack. On the contrary, officials there keep saying "no comment." Something else is really ominous. The political leaders in the countries over which Israeli bombers will have to fly are deadly silent. They are not telling Israel in full public view that if Israel sends planes over their airspace, they will go to war with Israel. They are not saying that they are preparing right now to shoot down every Israeli plane that flies over their airspace. They are saying nothing. Why? I think the main reason is that they will not back up their words with deeds. They will not shoot down Israeli planes. They say nothing in public because they will do nothing if the overflights take place. If they go public with bellicose threats today, their own people will turn on them if they fail to back up their words with deeds if the flights take place. "You said you would do something. You did nothing. Get out!" This could start internal revolutions in the overflown countries. Silence is golden. It's yellow, but it's golden. This tells me that the overflight countries' leaders think the attack may take place. They would prefer to be accused of having been caught flat-footed by the Israeli Air Force than unwilling to back up a threat. American officials are offering the bipartisan line: "We must settle this through diplomacy." (To which Israeli government officials can respond, Tonto-like: "Who you mean we, paleface?") They are not saying anything about what sanctions against the State of Israel that America will impose as soon as Israeli jets bomb Iran. That is because there will be no such sanctions. Admiral Mullen supposedly sent Israel a statement in early July saying that the United States has not issued a green light for an Israeli attack on Iran. This supposedly means something important in itself. It means nothing in itself. What it means is the United States has not issued a red light against an Israeli attack on Iran. This means that there is no stop sign. There is no red light, so the absence of a green light means nothing. Of course no one has said that the United States will help Israel in such an attack. So what? Israeli officials are not asking for a public offer of American help. If the United States and those governments over which the Israeli Air Force must fly are not issuing public statements at this time warning that there will be significant negative sanctions imposed on the State of Israel as soon as the attack is launched, then this is an implied green light. Do we imagine that senior decision-makers in the Israeli government care a whit about the lack of an official American green light to their attack on Iran? They are as unconcerned about the lack of a green light as Iran is unconcerned about President Bush's threat of sanctions if Iran does not comply with all requirements announced by the Bush administration. Iran knows what Israel knows: the Bush administration is terminal. It will end on January 20, 2009. It has no teeth. Lame ducks don't bite. They merely squawk. Why should we think that either Iran or Israel gives a fig about the red light/green light debate? American pundits may think this debate is important, but why should anyone with common sense think it's important? TIMETABLES Iraq has announced that the United States must pull out its troops. It is demanding dates for this withdrawal. The Bush administration is pooh-poohing all this, and will not under any circumstances announce such a timetable, but so what? There is a timetable for the Bush administration's withdrawal: January 20, 2009. This means that the United States is going to be pressured by Iraq's government to leave Iraq from now on. Most of the troops will be forced to leave Iraq unless things change dramatically. Then what will be done with the 14 major military bases that have been built? As the pressure increases to force us to leave Iraq, and as the pressure from the Taliban increases in Afghanistan, and as the pressure from voters increases to get our troops out of both countries, and as the likelihood of the election of Obama increases, decision-makers in the State of Israel are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If the United States pulls out of the region, the State of Israel will be left high and dry. But there is another possible scenario. If Iran's surrogate Shia forces in the region take on the United States troops in reaction to an Israeli attack on Iran, American public opinion will swing in favor of keeping the troops there, no matter what. "Who do those Iranians think they are? We issued no green light to the Israelis. It's not our fault." If Iran begins to supply weapons to Shia forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American death rate goes up, then American voters will switch back to a pro-war position. At least, this is a possibility. Americans do not like to be pushed around. Any escalation of war in the region will create havoc for the supply of oil. The world economy is moving into recession already; it may go into a true depression if oil goes to $500 and stays there. So, the stakes are enormous. The outcome is no longer in the hands of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any of the other outsiders to the Middle East. The outcome, or at least the trigger, is completely in the hands of the decision-makers in the State of Israel. They hold the gun. Unless the United States and Western Europe tell the decision-makers in the State of Israel that Europe and the United States will impose significant negative sanctions after an attack on Iran, then decision-makers there are going to make a decision based on the self-interest of the ruling party, not the self-interest of American or European voters. They are going to take care of their perceived problem, exactly as we would expect any other national political leaders would take care of their problem. That's why all talk about war being a threat to the self-interest of the whole makes sense only if the Israelis conclude that the economic crisis will be so severe that it will take them down in the whirlpool of economic collapse. They are not afraid of military retaliation from Iran. They are also not afraid of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any other coalition that does not have the backbone to say in advance that there will be major sanctions placed on the State of Israel if there is an attack on Iran. This is why I am concerned about the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran. I am in no way calmed by statements attributed to Admiral Mullen. When Admiral Mullen holds a press conference and says publicly that there is no green light for an attack by the Israeli Air Force on Iran, and that any flyover of Iraq by Israeli planes will lead to shoot downs of Israeli planes by American planes, then I will stop worrying about the threat of an attack on Iran by the Israeli Air Force. How likely do you think such a press conference is? We must face reality: the decision to go to war with Iran is 100% in the hands of Israeli decision-makers. It is not in the hands of the United States, Europe, or Asia. In other words, the economic fate of the West over the next decade is now in the hands of decision-makers who are concerned about the long-term survival of their own country. They are concerned because they do not want to have Iran in the possession of nuclear weapons. Both candidates for President have said the same thing. We have seen saber-rattling by the Iranians with the film-doctored test of the missiles this week. These missiles are militarily useless as weapons against the Israelis. They are as irrelevant militarily as Germany's V-2 missiles were in 1945. They cannot inflict enough damage to make a difference, unless they are used against Saudi Arabian oil fields. But, if they had a nuclear warhead, that would make all the difference. The Israelis know this. So, they are going to make their decision in terms of this long-term threat. The main inhibition against an attack is the possible collapse of the Western economy, which buys Israeli-produced goods. This threat may be sufficient to keep them from attacking. I dearly hope that it is. But it is naïve to believe that they are going to make their decision because of worries about whether Admiral Mullen has issued a green light or not. CONCLUSION When you invest your money, do not ignore the worst-case scenario. Set aside some of your money on the assumption that the worst-case will come true. This is what any military strategist does. He makes his decisions in terms of what the enemy can do, not what it would be convenient for the enemy to do. I suggest that you be aware of this threat. I suggest that you sit down with the family budget and outline what your response would be if the price of gasoline were $10 a gallon or $15 a gallon or $20 a gallon. What would you do? I know what you would do. You would drive less. Ignore the happy-face assessments of the geopolitical strategists. Ignore the happy-face assessment of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry "Goldman Sachs" Paulson. These assessments are being issued to keep panic from spreading. I am doing my best to encourage people to take rational steps with some of their liquid assets: to hedge themselves against the possibility that there will be an attack on Iran before January 20, 2009. This doesn't mean that I think such an attack is a sure thing. Decision-makers in the State of Israel are going to have to live with $400 oil, just like all the rest of us. They may decide that this risk is too great. They may decide to put up with the threat of a future nuclear-armed Iran. I won't bet all of my money on this. I don't think you should either. July 12, 2008 Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.

Please explain...what is your opinion about this Article? Plugging holes Central banks' latest moves to increase liquidity will ease but not solve the credit crunch YOU might call it the sandbag approach to central banking. As the turmoil in credit markets deepens and broadens, central banks, particularly America's Fed, have devised ever more ways to bolster the markets against collapse by providing more funds to more actors, for longer periods and against broader ranges of collateral. This week brought the latest round of sandbagging. In two announcements, on March 7th and 11th, the Fed promised a series of new measures. It expanded the facility through which banks can bid for liquidity and introduced a new scheme under which the central bank would provide up to $200 billion of Treasury bonds to market-makers in return for dodgier assets, such as mortgage-backed securities. On March 11th, other central banks joined in too. Financial markets were delighted. Wall Street's main share indices enjoyed the biggest one-day rise in over five years. But the optimism did not last. Within days dollar selling drove gold above $1,000 an ounce and the dollar below ¥100. Though the Fed's tools are useful, the bad news is not over. The logic behind broader liquidity provision is simple: to break a vicious circle of fear and forced selling. In recent days, many corners of the credit markets were becoming dysfunctional, with investors refusing to hold all but the safest government bonds. Spreads in normally safe and liquid markets, such as bonds issued by the quasi-official mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, widened alarmingly and prices wobbled. Higher volatility and wider spreads prompt banks to demand more collateral from borrowers, which in turn exacerbates the mess. By offering the safe Treasury bonds that investors crave, and holding unwanted securities in return, the Fed intends to block this spiral. A modest risk That makes a lot of sense. By reducing the panic-induced part of widening credit-spreads, the new liquidity tools mitigate the damage that dysfunctional credit markets would otherwise wreak on the economy. They also take the pressure off the central bank's other, rather blunter, policy tool—lower interest rates. The Fed has already slashed short-term interest rates by 1.25 percentage points in the past two months, in part to counter the credit turmoil. Before this week's liquidity actions, financial markets expected another three-quarter-point cut at the Fed's next rate-setting meeting on March 18th. With commodity prices soaring, the dollar plumbing new depths and expectations of future inflation on the rise, such a large rate-cut would be risky. The new liquidity tools reduce the odds that the Fed is spooked into recklessness. Equally important, these gains come at only modest risk. The Fed will hold dodgier securities. But by taking them as collateral for temporary loans and at a discount, it would lose money only if there is a bankruptcy among the market-makers borrowing Treasury bonds. The ECB has long taken such securities as collateral. In the long term, central banks' willingness to broaden liquidity support during crises may induce banks to behave more riskily (a temptation that will need to be countered with more effective rules on banks' own liquidity). But that hardly seems a problem today. The biggest danger is excessive expectations. Liquidity provision, however artful, is not a magic bullet for the credit crunch. It alleviates panic and buys time, but does not eliminate the underlying losses, get rid of the uncertainty about who holds them, or prevent the inevitable credit tightening that will follow. And the bad news is far from finished. As foreclosures and falls in house prices accelerate, estimates of likely losses on mortgage-backed securities, now around $400 billion, are still rising. The credit contraction these losses will spawn has hardly started. Yet the economy is already in recession. That is not official, but the latest jobs figures, which showed private-sector employment falling in each of the past three months, leave little doubt that the economy is contracting. More mortgage losses will result as joblessness spawns foreclosures, along with higher defaults on everything from credit cards to corporate loans. There are some bright spots. Banks are limiting the scale of the squeeze by raising new capital, over $100 billion so far—though they could raise more. The downturn is being cushioned by still-strong global growth. George Bush's fiscal stimulus package will soon add a short boost. But, all told, recession suggests the credit problems will get worse before they get better. The Fed's sandbag strategy will help ward off disaster, but it won't shore up a sagging economy.

new job/old one is going under,need mortgage in MI, fair credit,0 down, have 3K/closing/ whats the chances? I have found a house that we like(first time buyer). Wife can't be on loan, she had foreclosure prior to marriage last year(lost her job),back in college. We moved back to her home town, so I took a job with co and they are in trouble(many layoffs). I have a chance for a new job offer but credit is only hittting 600 (all clean,had slow pmnts due to layoff last yr at this job). We only have a few thou to wrk with and would arbor mtg be a place to get decent loan? Fannie mae? help here plz. We have to move soon in 90 days and don't want to get in the rent merry go round. that saps your savings and you can't have pets(have 2dogs/ cats) I don't want to get rid of pets wife would be devastated. We found a house that has great backyard and space for family. we are worried about losing any$ for appraisal and it falling thru due to all the foreclosures around area (house is only 60000)/ needs minor repairs. What would be a decent offer/on busy street/older neighborhood/ some urban blight

Housing bailout for Bankrupt Home owners: A Good Idea? After weeks of political infighting, the Senate approved a $300 billion plan Friday that will help cash-strapped American homeowners facing foreclosure during what economists say is the worst housing decline since the Depression. The measure would help an estimated 400,000 homeowners avert foreclosures by trading their subprime mortgages for 30-year, fixed rate mortgages. It would also overhaul regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the nation's largest mortgage finance firms, as well as send federal funds to states and local communities to purchase and renovate foreclosed properties. Does this smack of government meddling in the private sector? Do the home owners in question deserve a handout?...or is their unresponcible financing their own fault, and should they face the consiquences? Your opinions please, and don't be a blooter! michelle h...you DO have a heart! WOW! A LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS FROM THE FOLKS, AND SOME STRONG OPINIONS AS WELL. GLAD TO SEE IT, SOCIALISM HASN'T GOTTEN US YET! Pythag...very astute observation...but lets get real...all those overhead costs for administering the loans! Each homeowner helped will get more like 50-100K...the rest going to the beaurocrats doing all the real work!