Maine Owl

Ms. Owl saw this come over A & E at about 3:15 this afternoon:


I would never say anything other than that these guys are 100% on the up-and-up. (Note: The ad. refers to the "Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008" see update below.) Can't quite make out the fine print, but I assume there would be a fee for the job loss and default "protection." Still, surely it is legal to offer over the teevee money loans with whatever terms like these. Yet I do wish our crack-shot journalists would ask crisis doomsayers how all this easy money can be flowing with all the credit seized up, when supposedly no one can buy a car, and the Great Depression is just around the corner.

At any rate, Chris Dodd approves so it must be okay.

But isn't "subprime lending" the supposed trigger problem in the economic "crisis" requiring the political class in Washington to drag the taxpayers kicking and screaming into a $trillion mud hole? What the hell is going on here?

Let's speculate. The lenders have learned something very important--The president and Congress will back up any lending practice with a taxpayer bailout, taking "toxic" paper off the books as deemed fit by officials owned by the industry. It's a nice arrangement that the political class is loathe to change in order to provide support for distressed people. This leads to the belief of many tuned to the teevee during the daytime that the types of loans you see here are their best option to keep their little middle class existences alive for one more day. Hence, these strange fee-eating "privatized" loan companies spring up to direct this business to the money flows insured against loss by taxpayer-sponsored bailout.

I haven't bitten on one of these loans yet, but I oughtta know because I resemble that remark. Is there a real day of reckoning on the horizon? I'd have to think so. But for now the political class prefers just to punt us into an increasingly uncertain future.

Update: HERE is a summary of the legislation referred to in the ad. The concept of the Bill claims as one of its principles, "No investor or lender bailout." Also, the borrower must pay back part of any benefit of the workout. Mmmmm. How would the current bailout interact with this program? Maybe someone could help explain. It seems to me the "privatized" aspect of promulgating this program, as seen in the ad., should raise some questions about just how the taxpayer is supporting it.

Update 2: Upon reflection, I suppose conceptually this somehow could fulfill what is discussed HERE: mortgagee bailout, not fat cat bailout, or what Dennis Kucinich discussed HERE. If so, why doesn't anyone mention this FHA legislation already passed? And why the need for the teevee loan hawking? Am I right about the fees involved?