DUH!!..69% Say Those Struggling With Mortgage Should Sell, Buy Cheaper Home

[Katiegrrl0]

Life sucks that way and I hate it for them.
But like hell will I help bail them out. I don't care whose fault it is.

Why would it require a bail out? Why would you think you would have to lift a finger? It's not necessary for you to do anything. The lender extends the loans over a longer period and lowers the payment for the time of the difficulty. When the people have their act together they pick up right where they were. The lender is still getting some negotiated payment and owns the home. The foreclosure rate drops. You do this only with people who are legitimately at the point of foreclosure. If people were stupid or institutions made unwise loans oh well.
The people retain their home and would be able to recover as the economy improves. No one loses anything. Forcing people into the street doesn't solve anything. It only makes matters worse.

It's simpler to scream " You want to bailout homeowners", and in their defense Obama probably would fuck up that simple solution and make it some massive bailout if we don't keep our eyes on him.

You are the one who seems focused on bailouts for homeowners. This is no bail out. It is a relief for the entire system. They will still be making payments as their employment situation improves the loan will be restructured back to the original status. The home is still owned and no bailout is given. In fact the lender will make more in terms of interest. What are you looking at. If you enjoy the US and want to see it thrive you would consider a plan such as this workable. You seem to be blind to helping anyone who through no fault of their own are in a pinch.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Life sucks that way and I hate it for them.
But like hell will I help bail them out. I don't care whose fault it is.

Why would it require a bail out? Why would you think you would have to lift a finger? It's not necessary for you to do anything. The lender extends the loans over a longer period and lowers the payment for the time of the difficulty. When the people have their act together they pick up right where they were. The lender is still getting some negotiated payment and owns the home. The foreclosure rate drops. You do this only with people who are legitimately at the point of foreclosure. If people were stupid or institutions made unwise loans oh well.
The people retain their home and would be able to recover as the economy improves. No one loses anything. Forcing people into the street doesn't solve anything. It only makes matters worse.

What you are suggesting makes sense. There is no room for that.

Besides how would these "deadbeats" learn a lesson if we "bailed them out".

The deadbeats or lenders who made bad loans would still struggle. There are many good people who have had a hard time through this and it would help them get back on their feet. Nothing if free and it is not welfare it's a hand up.

 

[eflatminor]

You are the one who seems focused on bailouts for homeowners. This is no bail out. It is a relief for the entire system.

You say tomato...

In fact the lender will make more in terms of interest.

Then there ought to be no need for governmental interference in the contract between lender and borrower. If you're correct, the lender will happily modify the loan. Of course, you could have no frickin' idea what you're talking about, but let's not even go there.

You seem to be blind to helping anyone...

Helping is someone one does of their own volition. You're advocating charity through force. Big difference.

...who through no fault of their own are in a pinch

So if my stock portfolio declines in value, through no fault of my own, will you write me a check?

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Life sucks that way and I hate it for them.
But like hell will I help bail them out. I don't care whose fault it is.

Why would it require a bail out? Why would you think you would have to lift a finger? It's not necessary for you to do anything. The lender extends the loans over a longer period and lowers the payment for the time of the difficulty. When the people have their act together they pick up right where they were. The lender is still getting some negotiated payment and owns the home. The foreclosure rate drops. You do this only with people who are legitimately at the point of foreclosure. If people were stupid or institutions made unwise loans oh well.
The people retain their home and would be able to recover as the economy improves. No one loses anything. Forcing people into the street doesn't solve anything. It only makes matters worse.

Why should the lender do that? The terms of the loan are the terms of the loan. If the borrower is released from those terms, then the lender is being robbed.

Do you think contracts should become meaningless?

If the person cannot pay through no fault of their own what does this hurt. You would spank someone who had bad luck in a rough time? How pleasant of you. The lender should do this because they are not strapped with a loan that went bad. They are not hung with a house that won't sell. They will get their money over a longer period of time and collect more interest. It keeps neighbors full. There are no vacancies that are subject to vandalism which will cost someone money. The person who had the tough time will get a job and pay the loan back helping that family. Who does this hurt? Who loses on a proposal such as this? What does the lender lose? Tell me what is so bad about this?
If the contract goes bad the people will claim bankruptcy and the lender gets nothing. Your way everyone loses. My way everyone makes out. But the American way is me first screw the rest of the people as long as I have mine.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You are the one who seems focused on bailouts for homeowners. This is no bail out. It is a relief for the entire system.

You say tomato...

In fact the lender will make more in terms of interest.

Then there ought to be no need for governmental interference in the contract between lender and borrower. If you're correct, the lender will happily modify the loan. Of course, you could have no frickin' idea what you're talking about, but let's not even go there.

You seem to be blind to helping anyone...

Helping is someone one does of their own volition. You're advocating charity through force. Big difference.

...who through no fault of their own are in a pinch

So if my stock portfolio declines in value, through no fault of my own, will you write me a check?

No, because your declining stock portfolio doesn't affect me. But you foreclosing on your home does.

I don't understand something . . . isn't it in everyone's best interest (and that includes the bank) to keep these folks in their homes? I don't mean the ones who over bought or took out a second mortgage for a boat or used their homes as an atm . . . I mean the ones that Katie is talking about. Ones who did buy within their means, who did do it all by the book, who did prepare for a rainy day but due to the massive crash are now struggling and on the brink of foreclosure? Isn't it better for the banks to rewrite the terms of the loan? So they don't get their money back in 30 years, they get it back in 40. Isn't that better than not getting it back at all?

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Did I not point out that these folks were in this predicament because a very good job was lost? I think I did. That puts a dent into someones income. Now they also would have a foreclosure and a bankruptcy plus the added attraction of a lower income and the added debt of selling a home for less than the amount owed. Seems like everyone on this board thinks that everyone is in that top two percent of earners. They are not. How many millions do you make every year. I am impressed so many of you top two percenters post on USMB.

It's odd but I've found over the years that usually on political message boards those who are the most hardcore "conservatives" IE those who espouse "fuck everyone who can't take care of themselves" are usually themselves deadbeats who are living off of others, and feel guilty about it and thus espouse such harsh opinions on an anonymous message board.

LOL

And I've found that most who are quick with someone else's money are typically dooshbags who wouldn't contribute a dime of their own to any charity.

Who is being quick with someone else's money? Nothing is given away. The terms of the loan are renegotiated to save the loan and to repay it without everyone losing. This wins on both sides. In a couple of years at most times will get better and these mid road loans will be paid off and the bank makes more money so who are you kidding? No one is asking anyone to forfeit anything or give anything away.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Life sucks that way and I hate it for them.
But like hell will I help bail them out. I don't care whose fault it is.

Why would it require a bail out? Why would you think you would have to lift a finger? It's not necessary for you to do anything. The lender extends the loans over a longer period and lowers the payment for the time of the difficulty. When the people have their act together they pick up right where they were. The lender is still getting some negotiated payment and owns the home. The foreclosure rate drops. You do this only with people who are legitimately at the point of foreclosure. If people were stupid or institutions made unwise loans oh well.
The people retain their home and would be able to recover as the economy improves. No one loses anything. Forcing people into the street doesn't solve anything. It only makes matters worse.

Banks do that kind of thing all the time. I have no issue if they willingly enter into modification agreements with borrowers.
I have a big problem when the gov't tells them this is what they must do. If so, what's the point of any contract if the gov't can simply abrogate it when it becomes politically feasible? That would destroy any notion of the rule of law. No one in his right mind would give a mortgage after that.
About 80% of the people who have gone through one of the Obama Admnistrations' limitless programs find themselves in foreclosure anyway 18 months later. Why prolong the agony? Trhis is why the housing market is still the weakest sector in the economy.

The housing market is weak because there are many homes available and more foreclosures on the horizon. If those are eliminated though creative financing that is reevaluated from time to time by the lender you have stopped the bleeding. This strengthens the housing market. Those that got themselves in the jam or the lenders that screwed up that's their problem. But for the many who have tried and because of circumstances could use help they get help.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Why would it require a bail out? Why would you think you would have to lift a finger? It's not necessary for you to do anything. The lender extends the loans over a longer period and lowers the payment for the time of the difficulty. When the people have their act together they pick up right where they were. The lender is still getting some negotiated payment and owns the home. The foreclosure rate drops. You do this only with people who are legitimately at the point of foreclosure. If people were stupid or institutions made unwise loans oh well.
The people retain their home and would be able to recover as the economy improves. No one loses anything. Forcing people into the street doesn't solve anything. It only makes matters worse.

Banks do that kind of thing all the time. I have no issue if they willingly enter into modification agreements with borrowers.
I have a big problem when the gov't tells them this is what they must do. If so, what's the point of any contract if the gov't can simply abrogate it when it becomes politically feasible? That would destroy any notion of the rule of law. No one in his right mind would give a mortgage after that.
About 80% of the people who have gone through one of the Obama Admnistrations' limitless programs find themselves in foreclosure anyway 18 months later. Why prolong the agony? Trhis is why the housing market is still the weakest sector in the economy.

The only banks being told they HAVE to do HAMP modifications are those which took government bail outs. It was a condition of their obtaining those loans.

Banks that didn't take money aren't forced to do good faith modifications.

That's true they are not forced but it would be wise business practice to keep someone in their home. It would be good for the economy and the banks bottom line.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's odd but I've found over the years that usually on political message boards those who are the most hardcore "conservatives" IE those who espouse "fuck everyone who can't take care of themselves" are usually themselves deadbeats who are living off of others, and feel guilty about it and thus espouse such harsh opinions on an anonymous message board.

LOL

And I've found that most who are quick with someone else's money are typically dooshbags who wouldn't contribute a dime of their own to any charity.

Who is being quick with someone else's money? Nothing is given away. The terms of the loan are renegotiated to save the loan and to repay it without everyone losing. This wins on both sides. In a couple of years at most times will get better and these mid road loans will be paid off and the bank makes more money so who are you kidding? No one is asking anyone to forfeit anything or give anything away.

Do you understand the concept of "time value of money"?

As I said, if banks and borrowers come to a private agreement, fine. But imposing one from above is a violation of the rule of law. Not that that every bothered the Obama Administraiton, the most lawless in history, before.

 

[The Rabbi]

Banks do that kind of thing all the time. I have no issue if they willingly enter into modification agreements with borrowers.
I have a big problem when the gov't tells them this is what they must do. If so, what's the point of any contract if the gov't can simply abrogate it when it becomes politically feasible? That would destroy any notion of the rule of law. No one in his right mind would give a mortgage after that.
About 80% of the people who have gone through one of the Obama Admnistrations' limitless programs find themselves in foreclosure anyway 18 months later. Why prolong the agony? Trhis is why the housing market is still the weakest sector in the economy.

The only banks being told they HAVE to do HAMP modifications are those which took government bail outs. It was a condition of their obtaining those loans.

Banks that didn't take money aren't forced to do good faith modifications.

That's true they are not forced but it would be wise business practice to keep someone in their home. It would be good for the economy and the banks bottom line.

Do you run a bank or sit on their board?

 

[eflatminor]

No, because your declining stock portfolio doesn't affect me. But you foreclosing on your home does.

Logic disconnect there pal. First, if you're looking to buy a new home (or invest in any real estate), foreclosures and downward pressure on pricing affect you positively. Secondly, a guy's declining stock portfolio most certain effects others negatively because I have less to spend. Looks like I'll need a bailout too.

I don't understand something . . . isn't it in everyone's best interest (and that includes the bank) to keep these folks in their homes?

Then that's what they'll do. No government meddling required.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Buying a home was a not a serious gamble if one bought in a good area until the bottom fell out. You didn't have something like this happen to you so you seem rather flippant about your fellow Americans plight.
As long as number one is fine no one else's situation seems to matter. Okay.

Syrenn is well-versed in commenting on things she has no first hand knowledge off. As if that doesn't come off blatantly in her posts and lack of understand and real world solutions to real world problems.

yes we have been over this before...... i am about personal responsibilities and paying your bills.

The people I am suggesting that could use a program such as this are those that are about personal responsibility and had circumstances back them into a corner.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would it require a bail out? Why would you think you would have to lift a finger? It's not necessary for you to do anything. The lender extends the loans over a longer period and lowers the payment for the time of the difficulty. When the people have their act together they pick up right where they were. The lender is still getting some negotiated payment and owns the home. The foreclosure rate drops. You do this only with people who are legitimately at the point of foreclosure. If people were stupid or institutions made unwise loans oh well.
The people retain their home and would be able to recover as the economy improves. No one loses anything. Forcing people into the street doesn't solve anything. It only makes matters worse.

Banks do that kind of thing all the time. I have no issue if they willingly enter into modification agreements with borrowers.
I have a big problem when the gov't tells them this is what they must do. If so, what's the point of any contract if the gov't can simply abrogate it when it becomes politically feasible? That would destroy any notion of the rule of law. No one in his right mind would give a mortgage after that.
About 80% of the people who have gone through one of the Obama Admnistrations' limitless programs find themselves in foreclosure anyway 18 months later. Why prolong the agony? Trhis is why the housing market is still the weakest sector in the economy.

The housing market is weak because there are many homes available and more foreclosures on the horizon. If those are eliminated though creative financing that is reevaluated from time to time by the lender you have stopped the bleeding. This strengthens the housing market. Those that got themselves in the jam or the lenders that screwed up that's their problem. But for the many who have tried and because of circumstances could use help they get help.

We have had 3 years or more of "helping out homeowners" and the housing market is the weakest sector in the economy. Housing needs less help from the govt.
I do not distinguish between someone who was making bonuses in Vegas and bought a house he could never afford and someone who worked hard and saved for a downpayment. There is no moral issue here, that some people deserve bailouts and some don't. No one does. Not with taxpayer money.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, because your declining stock portfolio doesn't affect me. But you foreclosing on your home does.

Logic disconnect there pal. First, if you're looking to buy a new home (or invest in any real estate), foreclosures and downward pressure on pricing affect you positively. Secondly, a guy's declining stock portfolio most certain effects others negatively because I have less to spend. Looks like I'll need a bailout too.

I don't understand something . . . isn't it in everyone's best interest (and that includes the bank) to keep these folks in their homes?

Then that's what they'll do. No government meddling required.

It is not in anyone's best interest to keep people in houses they cannot afford. It is in everyone's interest to get the thing foreclosed on, let the people get resettled elsewhere, and sell the house for pennies on the dolllar to someone who can afford it.

 

[syrenn]

No, because your declining stock portfolio doesn't affect me. But you foreclosing on your home does.

I don't understand something . . . isn't it in everyone's best interest (and that includes the bank) to keep these folks in their homes? I don't mean the ones who over bought or took out a second mortgage for a boat or used their homes as an atm . . . I mean the ones that Katie is talking about. Ones who did buy within their means, who did do it all by the book, who did prepare for a rainy day but due to the massive crash are now struggling and on the brink of foreclosure? Isn't it better for the banks to rewrite the terms of the loan? So they don't get their money back in 30 years, they get it back in 40. Isn't that better than not getting it back at all?

I agree... its a bad deal all around and very sad.

I have no idea if it would work... but i would think...something like trading down would be a good solution.

No, you cant afford the mortgage on the home you are in.... but you CAN afford this home that is also going under kind of thing....


Other then that.... When i signed my loans i knew that if i defaulted i was out the house. It made no difference WHY i would not be able to pay, but if i could not i did not expect to be allowed to keep the house AND not pay the loan i signed. Mortages are a gamble... sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. The banks are in it to make money.

 

[syrenn]

It's odd but I've found over the years that usually on political message boards those who are the most hardcore "conservatives" IE those who espouse "fuck everyone who can't take care of themselves" are usually themselves deadbeats who are living off of others, and feel guilty about it and thus espouse such harsh opinions on an anonymous message board.

LOL

And I've found that most who are quick with someone else's money are typically dooshbags who wouldn't contribute a dime of their own to any charity.

Who is being quick with someone else's money? Nothing is given away. The terms of the loan are renegotiated to save the loan and to repay it without everyone losing. This wins on both sides. In a couple of years at most times will get better and these mid road loans will be paid off and the bank makes more money so who are you kidding? No one is asking anyone to forfeit anything or give anything away.

So long as the full price of the loan is paid... fine...i don't care how they renegotiate it...and they SHOULD. A lower interest rate or a fixed loan.... great. But asking the bank to eat the cost of the decrease in value of a home is crazy. Asking them to care that your personal finical circumstances has changed is crazy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, because your declining stock portfolio doesn't affect me. But you foreclosing on your home does.

Logic disconnect there pal. First, if you're looking to buy a new home (or invest in any real estate), foreclosures and downward pressure on pricing affect you positively. Secondly, a guy's declining stock portfolio most certain effects others negatively because I have less to spend. Looks like I'll need a bailout too.

If my neighbors go into foreclosure how does that affect me positively? The lower value of their home lowers the value of my home . . wouldn't it better to keep those folks in their homes?

You losing money on a bad investment does not directly affect your neighbors/neighborhood the way you foreclosing on your house directly affects your neighbors/neighborhood.

I don't understand something . . . isn't it in everyone's best interest (and that includes the bank) to keep these folks in their homes?

Then that's what they'll do. No government meddling required.

I didn't say anything about the government getting involved. I said the banks can re-structure the loans.

 

[syrenn]

Syrenn is well-versed in commenting on things she has no first hand knowledge off. As if that doesn't come off blatantly in her posts and lack of understand and real world solutions to real world problems.

yes we have been over this before...... i am about personal responsibilities and paying your bills.

The people I am suggesting that could use a program such as this are those that are about personal responsibility and had circumstances back them into a corner.

Change in life circumstances makes no difference to a loan. Taking out any loan is a gamble.

 

[syrenn]

Banks do that kind of thing all the time. I have no issue if they willingly enter into modification agreements with borrowers.
I have a big problem when the gov't tells them this is what they must do. If so, what's the point of any contract if the gov't can simply abrogate it when it becomes politically feasible? That would destroy any notion of the rule of law. No one in his right mind would give a mortgage after that.
About 80% of the people who have gone through one of the Obama Admnistrations' limitless programs find themselves in foreclosure anyway 18 months later. Why prolong the agony? Trhis is why the housing market is still the weakest sector in the economy.

The housing market is weak because there are many homes available and more foreclosures on the horizon. If those are eliminated though creative financing that is reevaluated from time to time by the lender you have stopped the bleeding. This strengthens the housing market. Those that got themselves in the jam or the lenders that screwed up that's their problem. But for the many who have tried and because of circumstances could use help they get help.

We have had 3 years or more of "helping out homeowners" and the housing market is the weakest sector in the economy. Housing needs less help from the govt.
I do not distinguish between someone who was making bonuses in Vegas and bought a house he could never afford and someone who worked hard and saved for a downpayment. There is no moral issue here, that some people deserve bailouts and some don't. No one does. Not with taxpayer money.

Personally i would rather the tax payers bail out the taxpayers and not the banks.

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, because your declining stock portfolio doesn't affect me. But you foreclosing on your home does.

I don't understand something . . . isn't it in everyone's best interest (and that includes the bank) to keep these folks in their homes? I don't mean the ones who over bought or took out a second mortgage for a boat or used their homes as an atm . . . I mean the ones that Katie is talking about. Ones who did buy within their means, who did do it all by the book, who did prepare for a rainy day but due to the massive crash are now struggling and on the brink of foreclosure? Isn't it better for the banks to rewrite the terms of the loan? So they don't get their money back in 30 years, they get it back in 40. Isn't that better than not getting it back at all?

I agree... its a bad deal all around and very sad.

I have no idea if it would work... but i would think...something like trading down would be a good solution.

No, you cant afford the mortgage on the home you are in.... but you CAN afford this home that is also going under kind of thing....


Other then that.... When i signed my loans i knew that if i defaulted i was out the house. It made no difference WHY i would not be able to pay, but if i could not i did not expect to be allowed to keep the house AND not pay the loan i signed. Mortages are a gamble... sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. The banks are in it to make money.

If these were isolated incidents then I'd agree, those people should just foreclose and get on with their life. It's bigger than that and fixing it - er, helping it get fixed - is in everyone's best interest.

If the banks restructured the loans and that included lower monthly payments so folks could stay in their homes, not go into foreclosure, everyone would benefit from that. At least that's how it seems to me.