Hillary Clinton wants to freeze interest rates.
Many economic observers think that idea's all wet.
The leading candidate for the Democratic nomination (according to those untrustworthy polls) has been getting ripped for going way overboard on her proposal to fix the mortgage crisis in the U.
S.
According to critics, real estate in the U.
S.
would take longer to rebound if Clinton's plan was accepted.
These are examples of what some critics have said about her plan: * "It certainly would not speed the recovery of the housing market," said Doug Duncan, chief economist of the Mortgage Bankers Association (Fortune magazine) * "Interest rates move in response to many stimuli - too many for the government to lasso.
And they are pretty much a private-sector affair.
Those interest rates the candidates want to freeze are a revenue stream investors bet on," wrote Greg Wilcox in the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
* From WizBangBlue.
com: "The worst thing the government could do is adopt a plan like Hillary's which would make the rest of us (who chose not to take out loans we couldn't afford) pay the price for other people's mistakes.
" There's no getting around the fact that someone is going to end up getting bailed out.
The banks and bond insurers are already close to being clear of the forest because of the stimulus package and 1.
25% rate cut by the Federal Reserve.
So, Clinton doesn't really have to defend that aspect of her plan.
However, there are detrimental impacts of such a prolonged freeze.
Surprisingly, no one in the media has pushed her on the topic.
Nor have they asked her to explain the benefits.
Considering that interest rates are currently at a 44-year low at 5.
23% and a rate freeze would probably push the number up to somewhere around 8%, then home owners are going to be paying more, not less.
In Clinton's defense, there is something to be said for halting foreclosures and mortgage interest rates for a period of time until the credit crisis is further evaluated.
The economy (the world?) needs stability and that should be her argument for proposing such a drastic plan.
"Hold it everybody, it's time we catch our breath" - something along those lines.
But we don't need five years to get it sorted out.
In fact, there are now whispers that real estate in the U.
S.
is going to get hot again because of the low rates and the deep, deep bargains available.
If Wolf Blitzer wanted to call her "naïve" and have a chance of it sticking, this was his opportunity Thursday night during the debate with Barack Obama.
Clinton comes across as an expert on many topics.
On this topic, though, she seems to be out in the cold.
Many economic observers think that idea's all wet.
The leading candidate for the Democratic nomination (according to those untrustworthy polls) has been getting ripped for going way overboard on her proposal to fix the mortgage crisis in the U.
S.
According to critics, real estate in the U.
S.
would take longer to rebound if Clinton's plan was accepted.
These are examples of what some critics have said about her plan: * "It certainly would not speed the recovery of the housing market," said Doug Duncan, chief economist of the Mortgage Bankers Association (Fortune magazine) * "Interest rates move in response to many stimuli - too many for the government to lasso.
And they are pretty much a private-sector affair.
Those interest rates the candidates want to freeze are a revenue stream investors bet on," wrote Greg Wilcox in the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
* From WizBangBlue.
com: "The worst thing the government could do is adopt a plan like Hillary's which would make the rest of us (who chose not to take out loans we couldn't afford) pay the price for other people's mistakes.
" There's no getting around the fact that someone is going to end up getting bailed out.
The banks and bond insurers are already close to being clear of the forest because of the stimulus package and 1.
25% rate cut by the Federal Reserve.
So, Clinton doesn't really have to defend that aspect of her plan.
However, there are detrimental impacts of such a prolonged freeze.
Surprisingly, no one in the media has pushed her on the topic.
Nor have they asked her to explain the benefits.
Considering that interest rates are currently at a 44-year low at 5.
23% and a rate freeze would probably push the number up to somewhere around 8%, then home owners are going to be paying more, not less.
In Clinton's defense, there is something to be said for halting foreclosures and mortgage interest rates for a period of time until the credit crisis is further evaluated.
The economy (the world?) needs stability and that should be her argument for proposing such a drastic plan.
"Hold it everybody, it's time we catch our breath" - something along those lines.
But we don't need five years to get it sorted out.
In fact, there are now whispers that real estate in the U.
S.
is going to get hot again because of the low rates and the deep, deep bargains available.
If Wolf Blitzer wanted to call her "naïve" and have a chance of it sticking, this was his opportunity Thursday night during the debate with Barack Obama.
Clinton comes across as an expert on many topics.
On this topic, though, she seems to be out in the cold.
SHARE
