Q: Now that the House has passed a bill to let bankruptcy judges adjust mortgages...

[Skip Intro]

do we need 50 or 60 votes to pass a Senate version?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52482F20090306

[jjray7]

1. 50 or 60

It depends if the Republicans decide to filibuster in the Senate on this bill. If not, then it only takes 50 (the dem VP as tie-breaker when Franken is seated). If they filibuster, then it takes 60 votes to pass a motion for closure which cuts off a filibuster and brings the bill to an immediate vote. However, three moderate Republican senators voted for the Obama stimulus package so you might expect a few of them to cross the isle to at the very least vote for closure. The Republicans are really toast at this point (even more so when Franken is seated) ... as long as the dems in the senate do not lose a grip on their balls, they can pass any measure they want. I'm looking at you Harry Reid!

[Skip Intro]

4. Didn't I just read that some efforts by Dems only required 50 in the Senate?

Maybe they were filibuster-proof for some reason.

I can't remember what this had to do with, and I'm a little embarrassed that I'm not more clear on the whole issue by now, but there was an article about some bills being a sure thing because those types of bills can't be filibustered. Something like that. Seems some need 50, some need 60, regardless of what the pukes do. That's why I asked the question. I'm probably parading some ignorance on my part, but what the hell, I don't know, so I'll ask.

I cannot wait until Franken is seated.

And I think all eyes are on Reid at this point.

[marketcrazy1]

2. this could destroy whats left of the banking industry

I hope we are ready...............

[Skip Intro]

3. What?

[marketcrazy1]

5. gotta THINK

what happens to the value of MBS if judges can cram down mortgages, cut payments, reduce principal. what happens to home prices in areas where more than a few of these modifications happen. values drop. that means more losses at banks, more write downs, more home price declines. be careful what you wish for, you might get it.. not that I oppose this, just considering the knock on effects.

[Skip Intro]

6. I would think cramdowns would have a far less negative effect on home values than foreclosures.

I'm no economist, but that seems to make sense.

From a different perspective, it seems if we can bail out Wall Street, bail out banks, bail out car manufacturers, waste even more ungodly amounts of money on wars like we have in Iraq, then how can we not help those, many who've been laid off or seen their incomes dwindle due to the recession/depression, and consider now the final option of bankruptcy, keep their homes?

[Stellabella]

7. Exactly right.

We've already SEEN the spiraling down of prices, the abandoned houses, the ruined lives. Keeping people in their houses is the only way to start fixing this mess Bush got us into.

[texastoast]

8. I don't know how many Senators

But we are going to need a boatload of judges.

[Greyhound]

9. Fighting to maintain house valuations is like like trying to stop the tide,

you just can't do it. Our genius legislators sold their souls, and our asses, to the financial sector so they could make a killing by artificially inflating house values.

The resulting economic imbalance is just too great, so either house prices have to fall or wages have to rise, that is the choice.

(Well, I guess there is one alternative, that being to just burn down millions of houses across the country)

[terisan]

10. I would expect it to spawn a backruptcy increase. nt