Which candidate would have insured the refinancing of mortgages instead of just giving money to JP Morgan.?

Question by : Which candidate would have insured the refinancing of mortgages instead of just giving money to JP Morgan.?
I am of course talking about how the government guaranteed the worthless mortgage backed securities of Bear Stearns so that JP morgan would buy them out, instead of guaranteeing the refinancing of the mortgages. That would reduce the interest rate of the refinances so that Bear Stearns’ mortgage backed securities would have value. Same effect, and maybe we would not have to give all of the money away to Bear Stearns. A lot of those people would keep their homes and pay back the mortgage.

I am not talking about refinancing people that cannot afford it, just those that could afford it.

Best answer:

Answer by kimberswell
Hillary. She really cares about this issue

Give your answer to this question below!

This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Which candidate would have insured the refinancing of mortgages instead of just giving money to JP Morgan.?

  1. nervous says:

    Hillary cares about who she owes too many people are going to be in her pocket. McCain doesn’t have a clue but he would have followed the GOP. Obama I think would have considered what was best for the country.

  2. Don H-Jews for Obama. says:

    I know Sen. Obama would like to do elements of this.

    The problem is that Pres. Bush will fall far short from that in the usual disconnect they have with the average citizen.

  3. tallguy_with_guitar says:

    I don’t think you understand the big picture. If Bear Stearns had gone under, there would have been a huge hit to our economy. It wasn’t just about mortgage backed securities, although they did have a larger position than they should have in MBS packages, it was much larger than that.
    We don’t want the government interfering in the free markets unless they have to. Bernanke made the right call here.
    To answer your question, none of the candidates would have insured this kind of refinancing guarantee.

  4. Darling J says:

    Honestly… McCain. Only because that would’ve been a BAD idea.

    Bear Stearns needed to be saved. The disastrous long-term effects it would’ve had on multiple levels of the economy would’ve been felt by EVERYONE. Not just homeowners.

    Sorry… can’t get your back on that one.

  5. Ellis Wyatt says:

    Rates are at all-time lows. Those who can afford to refinance already have done so. Many of the foreclosures are speculative properties anyway.

    That being said, bailing out Bear Stearns was the WRONG thing to do. Bear Stearns made bad decisions and they should face the natural consequences. They (and others) artificially pumped the market for all they could, knowing it would collapse at some point. It was the classic “pump-and-dump” and they collectively made $ Billions$ .

    The Fed is setting a horrible precedent and enticing the banking industry to do the same thing all over again – next time with a Federal Safety Net, compliments of us taxpayers.

  6. MortgageGuy says:

    You make a valid point, but you have to realize is that the Fed doesnt determine what the guidelines are fo rmortgage refinances.

    THe Fed is the centralized bank of America. Funny enough, its NOT OWNED or RUN by our government. What a lot of people dont understand is that the Federal Reserve is a group of private banks that came together in 1913. Yet, they control the entire US econcomy, including all of our money (they also now make all of our money as well, and have all the US GOLD that is “Supposed” to be guaranteeing america’s so called value.

    I bring this up because you mentioned that maybe we would all not give the money, when the fact is no matter what the Fed decides to do with funds, WE ARE PAYING THE $ $ REGARDLESS.

    Another fact most do not realize, each year every american pays income taxes. Do you realize not a penny of that money goes to schools, roads, military/defense, or anything else that woudl help what we all are assuming it is intended to do.

    All of that money goes DIRECTLY TO THE FED to pay the INTEREST on the money that the USA borrows from them. Thats how wonderful AMERICA land of the FREE? operates. Not a penny of our income tax dollars, (Billions and billions of dollars yearly mind you) goes to benefit of this country.

    So, even though as you can see here i am very bias towards the FED. I think that the USA would be a million times better off without a centralized banking system owned by PRIVATE INVESTORS! Our government should be in full control of our funds.

    BUT, to get to your question, the FED did a GREAT thing by helping out Bear stearns, which isnt somethign i ever thought i would say. They dont have to bail out banks, it isnt a requirement or law. They dont have to do a thing about this crisis if they dont want to, but they are.

    As for which one would be for this, probably none of them because im sure they all understand this a little more clear.

    I will say however that Barack Obama is the best candidate and will actually represent a good change.. Ron Paul would have been the best candidate, but unfortunately is no longer in the race.

    I strongly urge you to watch “America: Freedom to facism” a youtube 10 part documentary (Also was in theaters, won tons of awards) It was created and directed by the late Aaron Russo (Famous director & actor). This will give you alot more insight on the Fed and how they are steps away from turning our country upside down.

    Go Obama!!

    Hope this was insightful!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *