How the candidates stand on the subprime meltdown

by Sam Glover

Bankrate.com highlights the major-party presidential candidates' stances on the subprime meltdown. Romney, Huckabee, and McCain favor a light touch, perhaps freezing interest rates or offering some aid to borrowers. But they are vague as to what, if anything, they would do. Paul favors a return the gold standard and the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

Democrats Clinton and Obama, by contrast, each have a plan to address the problem and prevent a recurrence.

Clinton's four-point plan is to (1) crack down on unscrupulous mortgage brokers; (2) crack down on mortgage lending abuses; (3) help reduce foreclosures; and (4) expand affordable housing.

Obama's also has four points to his approach, and would (1) combat mortgage fraud and subprime loans; (2) mandate accurate loan disclosure; (3) create a fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosure; and (4) close the bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.

So there you have it. The Democrats seem to have given the subprime meltdown more thought than the Republicans, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, whose solution involves a fundamental change to the market.

[Caveat Emptor crosspost]

Comments

[Doe]

The republican* in me wants the govt to stay out of this and make the industry lie in the bed it made. Any bailout is really going to help the industry keep the party going, it's not really for consumers, many of whom have already suffered damage. (*Republican, meaning actual real republican that wants less big govt in our lives, more personal responsibility, etc, not the fake corporate republican who just wants govt out of our lives when they're doing something wrong, but wants the govt to bail it out when they get caught.)

The more liberal side of me wants to help those who were truly defrauded. I just don't know how in the world anyone, let alone the inept government, would ever sort out the victims from the fools from the crooks. At least, not in time to help the real victims and lock up the crooks.

In my personal opinion, those in the industry who wanted govt out of it, (wanted to "let the markets work" when various consumer groups and so-called liberals were calling for law enforcement to act on mortgage fraud), should go under. That's letting the market work. They do not deserve a bailout at the expense of tax payers, but should live with the consequences of their own greed, hypocrisy, and in some cases corruption and crime.

Also in my personal opinion, buyers who were complicit in fraud or chose to ignore common sense should likewise have to bear the consequences. ONLY those who were actually ripped off should be deserving of any help. I believe that that number is few enough that the country can afford to help them, but like I said, I doubt the govt could sort it out in any sort of competent, expedient manner.