After Voting Against Cram-Down, DeMint And Vitter Tried To Kill Hope For Homeowners Fix
After Voting Against Cram-Down, DeMint And Vitter Tried To Kill Hope For Homeowners Fix
Yesterday, a provision that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to cram-down mortgages for troubled homeowners failed to pass the Senate. But that evidently wasn’t enough for Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA), who immediately after the vote sought to take down another piece of housing legislation, which is aimed at easing eligibility restrictions for the not-very-successful Hope for Homeowners program:
Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and David Vitter, R-La., began offering amendments to the bill shortly after the Thursday defeat of a controversial amendment to attach a bankruptcy provision known as “cramdown.” “The net effect of [the amendments] is to virtually bring down this bill,” [Sen. Chris] Dodd said.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said that he may pull the bill, even though “lawmakers on both sides of the aisle acknowledged that [Hope for Homeowners] is a failure because of overly restrictive eligibility requirements.”
Indeed, since the $300 billion program was launched last summer, just one homeowner (yes, one) has made it all the way through the process. Meanwhile, foreclosure filings jumped nearly 20 percent last month. Are those numbers that sit well with Vitter and DeMint?
2 Responses to “After Voting Against Cram-Down, DeMint And Vitter Tried To Kill Hope For Homeowners Fix”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
This shows the one sided nature of the whole bailout business. Both red/blue White Houses and our corporate owned Congress deserve razzies for their actions.
Corporafornication lives…
May 1st, 2009 at 3:15 pmMeanwhile, foreclosure filings jumped nearly 20 percent last month. Are those numbers that sit well with Vitter and DeMint?
Yes, of course, because Vitter and DeMint know those people are losers. If they weren’t losers, they would be rich like Vitter and DeMint. They were probably too greedy when they got the mortgage and they’re probably lazy and looking for a handout.
A lot of these well-meaning liberal rhetorical questions fly right past the typical right-wing politician. You don’t help people without money because it is probably their fault and helping them would only corrode their character. The better sort of people, those with money, are too be protected and aided in every way possible, because they are the ones who built this country. The well-off get perks, the ruffian lower classes get crowd control.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 am