<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Is President Obama Proposing That the Government Buy Out the Banks' Bad Mortgages?</title>
		<description>Comments for Is President Obama Proposing That the Government Buy Out the Banks' Bad Mortgages? at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.cepr.net</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:30:37 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/is-president-obama-proposing-that-the-government-buy-out-the-banks-bad-mortgages#comment-14402</link>
			<description>but wouldn't this allow the homeowner to stay in the home? Isn't that the political problem Obama is facing right now?:  He's got to reduce the pain of the foreclosure crisis or face populist resistance/outrage/opposition, but he can't do that without hurting the banks.  So this solution keeps the banks whole and people in their homes (while being very unfair to homeowners and not according to any known principle of justice).  Do I have it wrong? - josh</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:26:37 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/is-president-obama-proposing-that-the-government-buy-out-the-banks-bad-mortgages#comment-14401</link>
			<description>Why not order the bank holding the note to refinance the mortgage at 1.5 - 2.0% interest, and keep the principle at the amount owed?  That might keep a lot of homeowners in their homes, and would make the banks pay back to the society they owe their existence to. - Robert Owens</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:36:49 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
