Friday, February 20, 2009

WSJ no fan of Obama plan

The Wall Street Journal criticizes President Obama's plan to bail out irresponsible homeowners:
President Obama yesterday announced his plan to prevent home foreclosures, saying he wanted to be "very clear about what this plan will not do: It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans . . . And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."

We really do wish he were right. In fact, the details released yesterday suggest the President's plan will do all of the above. The plan will help some struggling homeowners. But by investing in failure, the Administration will also prolong the housing downturn and make financing a home purchase more difficult for future borrowers. Meanwhile, the plan isn't likely to slow the continuing decline in housing prices. ...

Mr. Obama's mortgage plan is his third big economic rescue proposal in a month, and perhaps someone in the White House has noticed that financial markets haven't exactly cheered. Yesterday's end-of-day wrap from UBS put it this way: "Obama Speaks, Market Listens, Sells Off."


  1. Foreclosures are driving what life there is in the real estate market. Cap that, and the overhanging inventory will linger for years longer.

    This plan is more about buying votes than saving the economy. In the end it will do neither.

  2. Um, am I supposed to give a damn what the WSJ editorial board thinks? The paper itself remains quite a good source of economic and business news but the opinion and editorial section is both consistently and extremely biased and wrong. So when I hear "WSJ no fan of Obama plan", you'll find me unsurprised and unperturbed.

  3. Just curious: is this from the reputable side of the WSJ, where the journalists and folks with a reasonable grasp of economics work (i.e. the "news" section)?

    Or the wingnut welfare side, populated by discredited shit-weasels (i.e. the "editorial" section?

    If the latter, why precisely should we give a shit... ;)

  4. if that quote wasn't from the editorial wingnuts and is what the WSJ considers straight news then the whole paper has now slipped into worthlessness. Even if you believe its correct, its clearly opinion, not news. And hence, as I said above, I definitely don't give a shit.