Also, the workplace is filled with babyboomers, who after seeing their 401(k) shrink by 25% during the past 9 months, will keep working -- instead of retiring early and creating a job opening for someone else.

Unless everyone in America is going to get free mortgages and rent, it's not fair to use our money to bail out people who made poor choices and bought houses they couldn't afford.  

absolutely oppose any sort of assistance to people who took out irresponsible loans

Republicans, including McCain and Palin, have continuously promoted this attitude.  

It's important to assess who the real irresponsible parties are in all of this.

In the past banks and S&Ls carefully evaluated mortgage applications to determine affordability.  People would often apply for mortgages beyond their reach because they thought they could afford the monthly expense. The lender often knew better and would turn down the loan. I seriously doubt that many of the sub-prime mortgagees actually understood that they couldn't afford the payments and probably were able, in the beginning, to make payments. What was not clear was that the adjustable rate would come in at a later date to sting them.  Remember that interest rates were very low at the time.  One of our neighbors got stuck in that very predicament. Their original reasonable rate ballooned to 10.5% and the house was foreclosed.

Mortgage brokers were paid commissions partly based on selling tricky mortgages.  ARMs that would go out of site to marginal buyers and option ARMS to credit worthy people.  Tricky mortgages earned a higher commission.  The brokers could care less.  They sold the paper and were able to wash their hands of the deal while pocketing large fees. Still other people, with money, bought houses to flip and got stung betting the housing prices would rise forever just like people who got stung in the 20s believeing that stocks would rise forever. Many, all too many, people lost good paying jobs and could not find replacement jobs that paid any more than 1/2 to 2/3 of their prior wages.

The real irresponsible parties here were quick buck mortgage brokers, investment bankers leveraged at up to 30 to 1 and a government that encouraged a price spiralling bubble without stepping in to erect a regulatory structure in advance.

The idea that much of this was caused by 'slick' borrowers deliberately scamming people with degrees in finance, mathematics and marketing is more than a little sickening.  That attitude is typical; blame the little guy, blame the victim.

I'd also like to point out that not a small part of this problem is foolish commercial lending that had no basis in reality.  How many new strip malls were built in your area that were never fully rented?

An HOLC would keep many (not all) people in their homes and prevent rapid loss of equity.  It would be interesting to know how many homes, mortgaged long before this phenomenon, are now worth less than the balance due.

I realize that in some markets average home prices have far outstripped the capability of most average earners. That will, unfortunately, take time to sort out as older homes priced way above any balance due sit for periods long enough to soften the asking price.

What HOLC does is bring the price back to that "reasonable level" -- and get the mortgage payments back on track there.

The homeowner gets to stay in the home (which doesn't turn into an eyesore or a meth factory either).

The bank gets a clean balance sheet and a paying customer.

HOLC deals with REAL ASSETS and that's what we the taxpayers buy.

Paulson's bailout is for FAKE TOXIC DERIVATIVES, and that's what we the taxpayers buy.

He trumpeted the FDIC protection as if a plurality of americans can even remotely relate to having to use 3 banks to "protect" their money.  Show of hands, how many people here have multiple accounts to insure their hundreds of thousands are protected?

I agree with you that jobs are critical, and something like HOLC will only help with that indirectly (and it will help-- more reasonable mortgage payments = more disposable income = more jobs)

And what's the idea here, another "trust fund" for possible future bail-outs?  How long do you suppose that would last before it started getting used for other urgent purposes?

IMHO, this is just pandering to all the folks yelling about spending "my money" for the bail-out.

BTW, how many of the the things the Congressional Dems have said would be corrected later ever got corrected?? FISA comes to mind as one which didn't--got worse.

So, I am not surprised. Especially in light of his recent ad on healthcare reform. The one that says there are two extremes: One, govenment control and higher taxes (Repub framing, much?), and two, no rules for insurance companies and denial of care. Obama's solution, between these two "extremes"? Tweak the insurance coverage with no preexisting conditions and, somehow, lower cost. He tells voters they can keep their employer paid health insurance, but doesn't mention the ever increasing number of employers who can't afford to offer it. So, they'll get...???

Two extremes: One being something which doesn't exist and is caricatured; second being the status quo! Wow, man. How daring! What Change!

And I have no Hope he will do better. Hillary says she will work as hard as possible for HOLC and UHC--but which Dems will support her? And be accused of racism for not supporting the first black president?

Obama has a $700B or $Trillion Plus readymade excuse for doing nothing in terms of any progressive programs. Voters will have to get by on Hope and Change, the change being him in office.

After following his 2-year Senate political career fairly closely - including a long series of interviews and debates in the primary ... add to that the faux Obama movement based on nothing but air - nothing Obama does now surprises me anymore. Nothing.

Obama wants to occupy the WH and in order to make that happen he has to do only two things: promise security to the rich (Wall Street) and promise to "keep America secure" just like certain warloving lobbies demand even if it blows up the world.

The Republican movement is still winning and clearly very seductive - that was obvious ca. three years ago when the so-called liberal bloggers co-opted everyone of their rightwing talking point in order to beat back Hillary and Bill Clinton? Is that too sad or what? Pathetic it is, however.

The 2004 Kerry/Edwards campaign was nothing to write home about at the time - but comments like we see now would not have been accepted.

Only four years ago, during campaign 2004 Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal etc. etc.... and Amy as well, real liberal were regular visitors on Air America and their opinions were highly appreciated and longed for ...cause they made sense to those who cared. Because They fought for the right stuff.

Where are they now?

I checked dkos for the first 1 1/2 year of the primaries and nobody mentioned Chomsky even once. He is the most admired thinker America has but MSM ignores him. The "progressive" netfolks could care less. They prefer to talk about themselves.

The funny thing is that even Somerby is too radial for the "progressive" net blogs. He was rarely discussed on dkos but not more than 10 to 20 commenters cared to post about him. Well. truths hurt and liberal careers have to be made. On teevee.

The DailyHowler is still the one blog worth reading. Nice to see BTD discovered the site and Somerby along with a few other bloggers. I would like to suggest: Don't stop now. Stop reading the bloggers, it's basically nothing but circle gossip. The real stuff worth reading cannot be found on the Obamablogs which most of them are now anyway. Talkleft is an Obamablog in 3/4 transition IMHO.

btw. You could have knocked me over with a teensie weensie feather when I found out that many bloggers here on TLeft had no idea who Amy Goodman was ... Amy, the fabulous reporter who is one of the only ones who interviews the smartest and experienced people in the world, i.e. Fisk, Tariq Ali, Chomsky, etc.

Amy was arrested during the convention. The media should have gone nuts over that. Nothing. Internet commenters even defended the rough behaviour of the police.Amy must have done wrong more than one "rogressive" concluded.

So this what it all has come to in only a few years ... When even a Senator Kerry doesn't find it nec. to  protect a young student from being tasered during one of his speeches, what can one expect from the police ...

It is worth reading the recent Amy Godmann treatment at the convention. In fact, the truth is must reading.

But does the electorate really have the patience for much more than that?