Home loan forgiveness

[Jarhead]

Your point?

Obviously you're too narcissistic to get it so I'll make it plain. These people have never been "leeches", have always been responsible, hard working, tax paying citizens who are facing life challenges that are not of their making and beyond their control. Their home is now worth about $120k less then what the paid for it and when they bought it the house was sold undermarket, not to mention the fact it had over $100k of equity in it before the bust.
So my point is these people aren't your so called "deadbeats" who refuse to do anything for themselves and with a little help they can weather the storm and probably come back as viable, responsible citizens again contributing to society and the public/private coffers when all is said and done.

And isn't this why the hell we pay taxes in the first place? So when we are in trouble we get some return on our investment?My goodness, I can understand the scorn people pour on the OWS crowd even while I sympathize with college kids drowning in debt that can't get decent jobs.

But to scorn upstanding tax paying citizens?

Jesus wept.

uh....no.

We pay taxes so we have streets, highways, police protection, fire protection, education, garbage collection, etc.

It is not an investment. One gets to decide if one wants to invest.

 

[Ravi]

Obviously you're too narcissistic to get it so I'll make it plain. These people have never been "leeches", have always been responsible, hard working, tax paying citizens who are facing life challenges that are not of their making and beyond their control. Their home is now worth about $120k less then what the paid for it and when they bought it the house was sold undermarket, not to mention the fact it had over $100k of equity in it before the bust.
So my point is these people aren't your so called "deadbeats" who refuse to do anything for themselves and with a little help they can weather the storm and probably come back as viable, responsible citizens again contributing to society and the public/private coffers when all is said and done.

And isn't this why the hell we pay taxes in the first place? So when we are in trouble we get some return on our investment?

My goodness, I can understand the scorn people pour on the OWS crowd even while I sympathize with college kids drowning in debt that can't get decent jobs.

But to scorn upstanding tax paying citizens?

Jesus wept.

so should the tax payer support the guy who lost his business due to the recession?
And the guy who bought a boat and then lost his job and has no savings to get by?

If you pay taxes you should benefit from it. It's really that simple.

 

[DiamondDave]

Your point?

Obviously you're too narcissistic to get it so I'll make it plain. These people have never been "leeches", have always been responsible, hard working, tax paying citizens who are facing life challenges that are not of their making and beyond their control. Their home is now worth about $120k less then what the paid for it and when they bought it the house was sold undermarket, not to mention the fact it had over $100k of equity in it before the bust.
So my point is these people aren't your so called "deadbeats" who refuse to do anything for themselves and with a little help they can weather the storm and probably come back as viable, responsible citizens again contributing to society and the public/private coffers when all is said and done.

And isn't this why the hell we pay taxes in the first place? So when we are in trouble we get some return on our investment?

My goodness, I can understand the scorn people pour on the OWS crowd even while I sympathize with college kids drowning in debt that can't get decent jobs.

But to scorn upstanding tax paying citizens?

Jesus wept.

No... we pay taxes to fund the government to run under the powers it is granted by the states in the constitution... we do not pay in some insurance scheme nor into some charity game

 

[Cuyo]

They got themselves into the mess, they need to get themselves out of it, Tax payers should not be on the hook for someone elses bad decisions.

Bumper stickers are bumper stickers.

Like it or not, we're all in this together. You will pay for the 'bad decisions' made jointly by buyers and lenders, either through taxes, through inflation, or through loss in your own equity.

 

[The Rabbi]

And isn't this why the hell we pay taxes in the first place? So when we are in trouble we get some return on our investment?

My goodness, I can understand the scorn people pour on the OWS crowd even while I sympathize with college kids drowning in debt that can't get decent jobs.

But to scorn upstanding tax paying citizens?

Jesus wept.

so should the tax payer support the guy who lost his business due to the recession?
And the guy who bought a boat and then lost his job and has no savings to get by?

If you pay taxes you should benefit from it. It's really that simple.

So no one benefits from paying taxes until they take a government handout? Really? Really?

 

[Jarhead]

There's a guy I know, in his late 50s now, both he and his wife do government contract work, always paid his bills on time, paid their taxes, bought a house that was affordable (at the time) and was able to put extra money away into savings.
6 months ago his wife's contract went bye bye and when nothing came through she went into a depression. His job was downgraded and in order to have a job he had to take a major cut in pay and the job has no medical insurance. He does what he can for extra money but has some developing serious physical ailments which limits what he can do and may not be able to continue working without proper medical care which he can't afford.
Their emergency funds are almost gone and without some kind of intervention they will possibly lose their home.

OK...how about this...(not a true story)

There is a guy I know who had an idea and wanted to start a company that revolved around the idea. He invested his savings and began his venture. Things were going well for him as he expanded and hired more employees. However, whereas the demand for his product was there, the long life of his product (he spent time and money ensuring superior manufacturing and using top quality materials) the demand rapidly faded as he saturated the market. IN esence his idea was a good one but his desire to put out a quality product proved to be his downfall. He pumped much of the money he made into R and D in the hopes he can come up with another product to sell....but he ran out of funds and had to shut down...losing everything.

We all have been put in positions to make decisions...sometimes we win and sometimes we lose...but it is the desire to win that keeps us going.

But anyway......do we help the guy you know with the house? If yes, do we help the guy I know with the failed business?

Maybe the guy you know should not have bought a house knowing he and his wife were on government contracts? Maybe my guy should have made his products out of cheeper materials and screw over the consumer?

Wonder if you see my point.

I see your point but many aren't seeing mine which is simple. Too many here believe that all the recipients of "government welfare" (so to speak) are do nothing, low life mooches, always have been, always will be.
None of us own a crystal ball besides which, your story is different in one very key point, the business owner made a conscience choice (about his product) and suffered as a result, the guy I know made all the right choices, based on the information he had at the time and is now suffering the consequences because of forces beyond his control.

whoa...I dont see it that way. Sure...some gamne the game.....but most dont want to be on welfare.

But when it comes to buying a home.....that is a big step. Itr is sad they may lose their home....but if they sold their home...say 5 years ago....would you ask them to split the profits with you? And if you did....do you think they would have?

 

[Ravi]

so should the tax payer support the guy who lost his business due to the recession?
And the guy who bought a boat and then lost his job and has no savings to get by?

If you pay taxes you should benefit from it. It's really that simple.

So no one benefits from paying taxes until they take a government handout? Really? Really?

Did I say that? Really? Really?

 

[The Rabbi]

They got themselves into the mess, they need to get themselves out of it, Tax payers should not be on the hook for someone elses bad decisions.

Bumper stickers are bumper stickers.

Like it or not, we're all in this together. You will pay for the 'bad decisions' made jointly by buyers and lenders, either through taxes, through inflation, or through loss in your own equity.

No.
If two people make an agreement and it falls apart it does not affect me. Perhaps the market might turn down but that is temporary. If I am forced to pay taxes to bail out the two parties then that is permanent--I have lost the money.

 

[Jarhead]

And isn't this why the hell we pay taxes in the first place? So when we are in trouble we get some return on our investment?

My goodness, I can understand the scorn people pour on the OWS crowd even while I sympathize with college kids drowning in debt that can't get decent jobs.

But to scorn upstanding tax paying citizens?

Jesus wept.

so should the tax payer support the guy who lost his business due to the recession?
And the guy who bought a boat and then lost his job and has no savings to get by?

If you pay taxes you should benefit from it. It's really that simple.

uh...we do.
But we dont look for more in return than we put in.

But you see it as an investment....so you expect more back than what you put in.

Or perhaps investment was the wrong word to use.....which is possible.

 

[Divine Wind]

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

I don't like the idea. Helping with a low interest loan is one thing and so is extending the terms of the loan, but just giving it away? First, it's wrong to reward bad behavior. Second, how is that fair to tax payers like me who bought reasonable homes we could afford on a fix-rate mortgage? Why aren't we rewarded for our good behavior?

 

[The Rabbi]

If you pay taxes you should benefit from it. It's really that simple.

So no one benefits from paying taxes until they take a government handout? Really? Really?

Did I say that? Really? Really?

Yes, actually you did. I could demonstrate how what you wrote leads to the natural conclusion I posted but since you're (rightfully) embarrassed by the exposure I'll just go on.

 

[syrenn]

There's an opinion in today's WSJ about a guy named Ed DeMarco. He's the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie. He's basically the cop that prevents bad policy decisions that taxpayers would have to pay for. F&F are already some 141 billion in the hole, so his job is to make sure the situation doesn't get appreciably worse.

Which brings us to the question of principle write downs, when lenders would reduce the mortgage principle amount for loans owned by F&F. IOW, a bailout, just in time for the 2012 election, another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.

Except Mr DeMarco won't play ball, he says the taxpayers loseout in the deal, which is true. He says principal forgiveness is not within his statuatory mandate, and Congress should be the ones to appropriate money to fund the idea if they wish.

Hard to argue with that, but of course the democrats are outraged. Bear in mind we've seen several housing relief programs in the lst few years, none of which have worked. And how fair is it to reduce somebody's mortgage but not somebody else's?

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

Why should tax payers pay for a house you choose to buy? Why should the tax payers pay for MORE of a house then you can afford?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I see your point but many aren't seeing mine which is simple. Too many here believe that all the recipients of "government welfare" (so to speak) are do nothing, low life mooches, always have been, always will be.
None of us own a crystal ball besides which, your story is different in one very key point, the business owner made a conscience choice (about his product) and suffered as a result, the guy I know made all the right choices, based on the information he had at the time and is now suffering the consequences because of forces beyond his control.

Ah my friend...but again you make an excellent point whether intended or not.
This is all a product of bad government policies.
Government policies both encourage and reward bad behavior.
The entire mortgage crisis is a direct result of government meddling. The point of their intention in financing F&F, strong-arming banks etc. etc. was to "put more Americans in their own home" as well as "generate affordable housing".
They accomplished neither, instead they destroyed the entire system because government---this is a big one --- makes no distinction between those in need, and those who abuse
Example: (Remember the point of the policy was to put mid-low income families in their own homes)
Land Tract #1 - Developer buys land - builds 20 affordable homes that have considerable lower margin ratio than larger homes (obviously)...but out of the goodness of his heart he builds them (yeah). Homes are well within range of target families.
Land Tract #2 - Developer builds 14 McMansions on same size land tract. Margin % for these types of homes are huuuuge. Not a single one of these homes fit the governments desired families.

The government made absolutely no distinction between the two above...now what do you think most developers did - build small homes that carry a low margin - or build massive 3000sq ft mansions that have enormous profits? No matter which one they did they benefited exactly the same through the governments actions.

Same with welfare recipients - for 3 decades the government made zero distinction between those in need, and lazy ass worthless bums.
Government encourages and rewards bad behavior.

 

[Jarhead]

There's an opinion in today's WSJ about a guy named Ed DeMarco. He's the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie. He's basically the cop that prevents bad policy decisions that taxpayers would have to pay for. F&F are already some 141 billion in the hole, so his job is to make sure the situation doesn't get appreciably worse.

Which brings us to the question of principle write downs, when lenders would reduce the mortgage principle amount for loans owned by F&F. IOW, a bailout, just in time for the 2012 election, another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.

Except Mr DeMarco won't play ball, he says the taxpayers loseout in the deal, which is true. He says principal forgiveness is not within his statuatory mandate, and Congress should be the ones to appropriate money to fund the idea if they wish.

Hard to argue with that, but of course the democrats are outraged. Bear in mind we've seen several housing relief programs in the lst few years, none of which have worked. And how fair is it to reduce somebody's mortgage but not somebody else's?

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

Why should tax payers pay for a house you choose to buy? Why should the tax payers pay for MORE of a house then you can afford?

Better question....if we bail them out with their home...and they live there for the next 20 years...and they end up with 150% positive equity...should they split the profits with the tax payer?

 

[Wiseacre]

Your point?

Obviously you're too narcissistic to get it so I'll make it plain. These people have never been "leeches", have always been responsible, hard working, tax paying citizens who are facing life challenges that are not of their making and beyond their control. Their home is now worth about $120k less then what the paid for it and when they bought it the house was sold undermarket, not to mention the fact it had over $100k of equity in it before the bust.
So my point is these people aren't your so called "deadbeats" who refuse to do anything for themselves and with a little help they can weather the storm and probably come back as viable, responsible citizens again contributing to society and the public/private coffers when all is said and done.

And isn't this why the hell we pay taxes in the first place? So when we are in trouble we get some return on our investment?

My goodness, I can understand the scorn people pour on the OWS crowd even while I sympathize with college kids drowning in debt that can't get decent jobs.

But to scorn upstanding tax paying citizens?

Jesus wept.

I don't know about scorn, but we don't pay taxes so we can expect a bailout if things go bad for us. Taxes are paid for the common good, so the gov't can perform the functions that it alone has to do because we as individuals can't.

I could live with creating programs to help out those who are in difficult situations, where there is some reasonable expectation of getting out of the hole they're in. But I would expect an eventual payback, a lien on the home equity so that the taxpayers get their money back at some future point when the house is sold. Don't know if that's part of the plan or not, but I'm damned if I'm going to support paying for a $50,000 write down on somebody's mortgage and then the guy sells some years later and walks away with money in his pocket. At some point, home values will hit bottom and begin to rise. The gov't can afford to wait.

I also think there should be a limit on the amount the taxpayers cover; if you've got a house that was worth in excess of say a half million, you're on your own.

 

[Wiseacre]

There's an opinion in today's WSJ about a guy named Ed DeMarco. He's the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie. He's basically the cop that prevents bad policy decisions that taxpayers would have to pay for. F&F are already some 141 billion in the hole, so his job is to make sure the situation doesn't get appreciably worse.

Which brings us to the question of principle write downs, when lenders would reduce the mortgage principle amount for loans owned by F&F. IOW, a bailout, just in time for the 2012 election, another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.

Except Mr DeMarco won't play ball, he says the taxpayers loseout in the deal, which is true. He says principal forgiveness is not within his statuatory mandate, and Congress should be the ones to appropriate money to fund the idea if they wish.

Hard to argue with that, but of course the democrats are outraged. Bear in mind we've seen several housing relief programs in the lst few years, none of which have worked. And how fair is it to reduce somebody's mortgage but not somebody else's?

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

Why should tax payers pay for a house you choose to buy? Why should the tax payers pay for MORE of a house then you can afford?

Better question....if we bail them out with their home...and they live there for the next 20 years...and they end up with 150% positive equity...should they split the profits with the tax payer?

NO. The taxpayer comes first, we get our money back plus a little interest. THEN they can get what's left over.

 

[Ravi]

so should the tax payer support the guy who lost his business due to the recession?
And the guy who bought a boat and then lost his job and has no savings to get by?

If you pay taxes you should benefit from it. It's really that simple.

uh...we do.
But we dont look for more in return than we put in.

But you see it as an investment....so you expect more back than what you put in.

Or perhaps investment was the wrong word to use.....which is possible.

Or perhaps you're just putting words in my mouth. I don't expect we should get more back than what we put in. I've paid enough taxes to support a third world country, I'll never get that back in my pocket. But I'd sure take a FEMA check if my home got destroyed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It would be nice if people would think things through instead of simply reacting emotionally.

 

[WatertheTree]

There's an opinion in today's WSJ about a guy named Ed DeMarco. He's the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie. He's basically the cop that prevents bad policy decisions that taxpayers would have to pay for. F&F are already some 141 billion in the hole, so his job is to make sure the situation doesn't get appreciably worse.

Which brings us to the question of principle write downs, when lenders would reduce the mortgage principle amount for loans owned by F&F. IOW, a bailout, just in time for the 2012 election, another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.

Except Mr DeMarco won't play ball, he says the taxpayers loseout in the deal, which is true. He says principal forgiveness is not within his statuatory mandate, and Congress should be the ones to appropriate money to fund the idea if they wish.

Hard to argue with that, but of course the democrats are outraged. Bear in mind we've seen several housing relief programs in the lst few years, none of which have worked. And how fair is it to reduce somebody's mortgage but not somebody else's?

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

3 cheers for Mr DeMarco, standing up for the taxpayer. If were going to start bailing out peoples bad decisions then I want a cash settlement, since I dont have any debt.

 

[WatertheTree]

There's a guy I know, in his late 50s now, both he and his wife do government contract work, always paid his bills on time, paid their taxes, bought a house that was affordable (at the time) and was able to put extra money away into savings.
6 months ago his wife's contract went bye bye and when nothing came through she went into a depression. His job was downgraded and in order to have a job he had to take a major cut in pay and the job has no medical insurance. He does what he can for extra money but has some developing serious physical ailments which limits what he can do and may not be able to continue working without proper medical care which he can't afford.
Their emergency funds are almost gone and without some kind of intervention they will possibly lose their home.

Life is hard for everyone. Instead of having his hand out for a bailout maybe he should start paying more attention to who he elects into office, and whats going on before there is a crisis.

Considering he is in his 50's it means that he worked during the boom times. He should have made better decisions back then.

If anyone is going to be bailed out it should be the youth of the nation, who were not around for the boom and only inherited the bust.