Obama’s Definition of “Responsible” Homeowners Who Deserve a Rescue

Your results opinions may vary.

Obama’s ‘Responsible’ Reno Homeowners: Are They?

As part of his “To Do List,” President Barack Obama visited Val and Paul Keller on Friday. The White House described them as “responsible” homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their Nevada home is currently worth.

They owe $168,000 on their mortgage, but their Reno home is currently valued at $100,000.

…If the Kellers had a “responsible” loan, that would be a 30-year fixed, in which case they should have paid at least some principal on the loan over the last 14 years. And didn’t these “responsible” borrowers, the Kellers, put some money down on the home?

We went looking: According to Washoe County records, the Kellers purchased their home in June 1998 for $127,000. So why do they have, according to the White House, a $168,000 mortgage?

White House officials now confirm to CNBC that the Kellers did a cash-out refinance in 2007, when their home had appreciated to $250,000.

Again, it’s not illegal, but are these the “responsible” borrowers that the administration is looking to help? They took out a $178,000 loan, using the $51,000 to pay down debt on the family construction business, so Paul could retire. Had they not taken that money out, and continued paying on the original mortgage, they would not be underwater today.

We’re helping finance their WINDFALL, in otherwords.

Get it?

Don’t you feel like a better person now? By all means ~ go about your day with a beatific smile.

You’ve earned it.

5 Responses to “Obama’s Definition of “Responsible” Homeowners Who Deserve a Rescue”

  1. JeffS says:

    Yeah, I feel soooooo much better knowing that my tax dollars go to supporting morons like the Kellers.

  2. leelu says:

    Yannow, being “up-side down” is only a problem if you are, for some reason, forced to sell. Otherwise, keep making payments and live in your house.

    What’s the problem??

  3. aelfheld says:

    Well Hells, we’re financing everyone else’s windfall, why not theirs?

  4. nightfly says:

    I thought windfalls were evil when businesses had them.

    :::head asplode:::

  5. aelfheld says:

    nightfly, they’re only evil when the business is evil. Or, to be more precise, they’re only evil when the business is of some use to society. If they’re nothing but tax sinks or conduits for campaign contributions then windfalls are just fine and dandy.

Image | WordPress Themes