So, today the Government has decided to "supposedly" bring some relief to home buyers by formally taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. How many times has the Government tried to come up with solutions that end up hurting more than helping? That tax rebate check solution was completely worthless in the end. Anyways, here some video from CBS, that breaks down what's going on in the housing markets.
So what does the federal takeover of two mortgage finance giants mean to consumers? Mortgage rates may fall a bit initially but probably not enough to halt the decline in home prices anytime soon. Some delinquent borrowers may have a better shot at modifying their loans and ending up with lower fixed payments. And the rules on new mortgages could slightly change. Oh, and the federal government will help pay for it all, using your tax money.
Sounds like the same old solutions to put the "average" American into more of a financial hole to relieve some of the bleeding from the housing markets and interest rates to me. Thank God I postponed buying a house cause Freddie and Fannie are in trouble..
Maybe I'm naive but that's my opinion; what do you think..will this really help those people that are really facing the crunch in the housing market? Hit me up and let me know.
I hope this gives you a little insight on how it's really working or not working...
Suga HiL
Posts
2 Comments:
nah this time it was necessary. this is not just another bailout. it's BIG when the govt seizes a company. the problem is that government should have been regulating these companies properly a long time ago. but they got too fat off of bribes. they let businesses off too much and too often. these companies are severely mismanaged and immense. if fannie or freddie go down, A LOT of other people go down. i think one guy said it's to the tune of 200-300 billion.
but you gotta ask yourself, who's been in office all of these years? who's voted time and time again against regulating these monoliths? who says govt should be smaller and shouldn't step in?
without strict regulations, we end up with these stories.
@ Anthony,
I think the consumer always ends up being in a lose, lose situation which is the worst part about it.
The government is like here, take $600-1200, knowing good and well--it's not going to help the economy.
Now, it's like let us take over Fannie and Freddie, knowing it's not going to have a stong enough impact to help those that really need it.
This is the main reason I'm really involved and invested so much in the politcal race this year..
Post a Comment