Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

• Tosh Keune February 24, 2009 9:39 pm

  

  Your explaination of the banks problem with foreclosure is right on point. If I were constructing such a bailout I’d suggest that you allow the bank to do two things.
  1. If they adjust a Mortgage value they can restart the amortization schedule (it is at the beginning of an amortization when the banks make most money).
  2. Unless the owner could show substantial financial challenges the bank could adjust the rate so the monthly payment remains the same. This could be overruled under some cases.
  The banks would be required to do one thing. They would be required to write down the mortgage to the same LTV as when the replaced mortgage was originated. If someone had a 95% mortgage on a 300K home now worth 200K they could request that their loan be written down to 190K but the rate gets adjusted to keep the PI at the same level as previously and the amortization schedule restarts.

• Michael A. Richie February 19, 2009 6:20 pm

  

  Just a brief comment on the Presidential Rankings survey…
  Mark, you are so right about 36th being too high a ranking for Dubya. Far too generous a ranking.
  One way you KNOW the poll wasn’t skewed by being overwhelmingly “liberal pinhead professors” (or whatever Bill-O might call them) is because Ronnie Raygun was ranked TENTH… WAY WAY WAY TOO HIGH (yes, I was shouting). I mean c’mon…. higher than Clinton?? I’m no Bill Clinton Superfan, but compared to some other presidents, I think he deserves higher than 15th. Certainly higher than Reagan. And CERTAINLY way more than a mere 3 places higher than Poppy Bush (18th).
  [ For the record, I think we are both referring to the CSPAN 2009 poll: http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx ].
  Peace.
  Michael,
  Columbus, Ohio
  PS – good show as always… looking forward to Helen Thomas.

• Benita Kaimowitz February 19, 2009 5:22 pm

  

  How sad to not even try for a system the administration agrees would be far better than what they’re proposing.
  Two comments:
  1) Try calling it Medicare for All as the Conyers bill does. People know Medicare and they like it. They know it works and that it’s not socialism. (Socialism, by the way, is the VA system where all the doctors work for the government and you don’t choose your doctor.) Single Payer is unfamiliar to most people, and it sounds weird and maybe dangerous.
  2) If we leave the insurance industry in the picture as the administration proposes, we the taxpayer get the short end of the stick. We pay for the heaviest users–the old, the very poor, and the war wounded. (Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. We leave the profitable part of health care to make profits for the insurance industry. Why not choose Medicare for All and spread the risks more evenly?
  Thanks, Mark. Good program.