New Mortgage Bailout Program: Stuck on Stupid.

[Listening]

I will admit, that because I became unemployed for a year, I missed one mortgage payment. I recieved a big thick application in the mail concening "help" with my situation. I promtly read and shredded the contract after reading that in essense, the government will eventually choke the life out of you if you sign that application.

Nothing is free people. Please pay attention to what is really happening. The government will own you if you take them up on the offert for so called "help". What they are doing is helping themselves to your property and your life.

I was not so bad off that I could not catch up on my mortgage.

What is it that they say, if the government says "they are here to help?"

A great point and thanks for bringing it up.

I have heard that to really get assistance is a mess and discourages a lot of people who are already discouraged. To some, it seemed more like a gimick.

Again, thanks for posting this.

 

[cbirch2]

Lol rick perry 2012 lmao

So since he unvieled his 20% flat tax, are you going to vote to increase taxes on yourself???? lmao lololololol

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Lol rick perry 2012 lmao

So since he unvieled his 20% flat tax, are you going to vote to increase taxes on yourself???? lmao lololololol

Choosing a different topic I see.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because this program is just giving the option to people to refinance their mortgage at a lower rate and thus save money on their monthly payment. But, as you pointed out, it is only for those who have been making their payments and doing what they can to meet their obligations. This is a helping hand to those people before they reach foreclosure and are added to the big mess we already have. People love to whine that the government doesn't help out the person who tries to do the right thing. Well now they are and surprisingly, (and I use the term loosely) you are upset about it.

Again, this is optional and the government does not spend any money, it just changes restrictions for refinancing of mortgages for people who's homes have lost value but have continued to make their payments. People lower their payments and mortgage lenders can keep people out of foreclosure. Everyone wins. Except for you, you're still a racist asshole.

Wow...

Solid response. Which part confuses you? Forget it......obviously the whole thing did.

You definitely are what you seem.

No, his response was spot on. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. It wont cost anything because all they are doing is lowering the rate? Hello? What planet do you live on, that lowering an interest rate is cost-free?
And if people are current on their mortgages, no late payments, then obviously they can afford the mortgage. What is lowering their payment going to do?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

More evidence that leftists are complete idiots...

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wow...

Solid response. Which part confuses you? Forget it......obviously the whole thing did.

You definitely are what you seem.

No, his response was spot on. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. It wont cost anything because all they are doing is lowering the rate? Hello? What planet do you live on, that lowering an interest rate is cost-free?
And if people are current on their mortgages, no late payments, then obviously they can afford the mortgage. What is lowering their payment going to do?

Wait . . . people refinance all the time to get a lower rate. If it ends up costing the bank (?) then why do they do it?

I think this program is directed at people who, while not in foreclosure, are struggling to meet their monthly mortgage payments. If they refinance at a lower rate their monthly payment will be lower. The gov't believes the homeowners will then take that extra savings and spend it, thus helping to spur the economy. Problem is, the folks who are struggling to pay their mortgage are likely cash-strapped due to loss of one spouse's income or a pay cut (which is why they're struggling) and any money saved will likely be spent on basics. It will also help prevent them from going into foreclosure if they are close to the edge. That's my understanding of it anyway.

 

[The T]

I will admit, that because I became unemployed for a year, I missed one mortgage payment. I recieved a big thick application in the mail concening "help" with my situation. I promtly read and shredded the contract after reading that in essense, the government will eventually choke the life out of you if you sign that application.

Nothing is free people. Please pay attention to what is really happening. The government will own you if you take them up on the offert for so called "help". What they are doing is helping themselves to your property and your life.

I was not so bad off that I could not catch up on my mortgage.

What is it that they say, if the government says "they are here to help?"

Good form!

 

[The T]

Here we go again. Why is Obama rolling out yet another soon-to-fail program to protect people from their own stupidity? I know the answer: the election is next year. But seriously. Will this guy ever get around to governing, like for real?
Obama to Announce New Program to Help Struggling Homeowners | ABC News - Yahoo! News
Note the requirements:

While administration officials say it will help thousands of homeowners, the program has its caveats. Only those homeowners whose mortgages are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be eligible for refinancing. They must have good credit and must have kept up with their mortgage payments, with no late payment in the past six months and no more than one late payment in the past 12 months. Additionally, the mortgage must have been sold to the agencies before May 31, 2009, and not been refinanced previously under the Home Affordable Refinance Program. The loan-to-value ratio has to be greater than 80 percent.

Now, if their mortgages are current with one late payment in the last 12 months, why in the hell do they need help to begin with? And since 80% of people enrolled in these programs end up foreclosed on anyway, why are we continuing to pour money into this?

Hmmm...... If Rabid is so opposed to it, this program must do something good for the average American Citizen.

Other than doing the same horseshit that cause the housing collapse in the first place? Yeah...real smart you are Crocks....NOT.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What "crunch" are you feeling, exactly? You are making the same payment you made 5 years ago, assuming you have a mortgage at all. Your property taxes should have gone down in a re-assessment of the house's value. If you aren't putting your house on the market, so what if the value is lower? Your car loses value every day and I dont see the gov't rushing to bail out people from depreciating cars.

The crunch of our collapsed economy! My house isn't in this dog fight so to speak but I know others that are. Besides that isn't the point.

The housing market is holding the entire economy hostage. You free up a couple hundred dollars a month in home owners pockets and watch the buying power it gives. That's a direct infusion of blood into our half dead economy. Not to mention the added stability it gives to the housing market.

Forget for a fucking moment that Obama is president and look at the upside as contrasted to the risks. No tax payer money infused unless a home goes under. Which wouldn't matter because F & F are already on the hook. Remove some imbalance in the value of homes. The program is NOT MANDATORY. I'm not seeing the risks.

Again like I said in my topic. I don't give a rats ass how this makes Obama look if for once it can actually have an impact on the economy as a whole and not just one group of friends.

Show me where this is a risk to tax payers and ill bail on this ship. Concrete evidence, not I hate Obama so its bad.

First, there is nothing concrete in this proposal. So there is unlimited risk that in the final construction and implementation there will be cost to the tax payers. I don't give a good god damn if its fucking Obama, Bush, or Mr. Roger's - it's all the federal government and the federal government likes to spend money.

Second, a few people have already pointed out the BLATANT, OBVIOUS truth that in its current form this is involving Fannie/Freddie mortgages. Both agencies are currently borrowing money from the federal government to make their required dividend payments to the federal government for their bailouts by the tax payer. So reducing cash flow to those entities WILL cost the tax payer more money. It's a fact and has nothing to do with Obama or the Incredible Mr. Ed. If you want to ignore it and continually pretend like no one has mentioned that fact in this very thread, go ahead. That doesn't make you open minded - it makes you the exact opposite.

Third, this has a lot of potential to diminish the availability of credit. Again, there will be reduced cash flow to Fannie/Freddie which in turn will result in less available capital to acquire more loans which will in turn mean banks will be less willing to lend. So people who were completely out of the loop of the whole mortgage crisis have the potential of being hurt by this. Additionally, people who lost their homes and are back on their feet are going to face a tougher time finding financing to get back in the game.

You say people dislike this primarily because of their opposition to Obama, yet all I've really seen out of you in support is some obscene attempt to look high minded will ignoring the facts of the situation.

If I'm high minded your simply bloviating out your ass. As you stated there isn't a concrete plan out yet so all your opposition is kinda moot. I'm of the mind that I will wait and see what is finally produced. As it stands now no tax funds have been offered and that's about all that matters to me. And as I stated I'm not ignoring any facts because without a final proposal their are no facts so give it a rest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Solid response. Which part confuses you? Forget it......obviously the whole thing did.

You definitely are what you seem.

No, his response was spot on. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. It wont cost anything because all they are doing is lowering the rate? Hello? What planet do you live on, that lowering an interest rate is cost-free?
And if people are current on their mortgages, no late payments, then obviously they can afford the mortgage. What is lowering their payment going to do?

Wait . . . people refinance all the time to get a lower rate. If it ends up costing the bank (?) then why do they do it?

I think this program is directed at people who, while not in foreclosure, are struggling to meet their monthly mortgage payments. If they refinance at a lower rate their monthly payment will be lower. The gov't believes the homeowners will then take that extra savings and spend it, thus helping to spur the economy. Problem is, the folks who are struggling to pay their mortgage are likely cash-strapped due to loss of one spouse's income or a pay cut (which is why they're struggling) and any money saved will likely be spent on basics. It will also help prevent them from going into foreclosure if they are close to the edge. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Banks do it because the borrower can refinance any time, subject to any prepayment agreement in the original mortgage.
If they are strugglign then they will not go and spend the extra money. They will use it to pay down other bills. This was the experience with the rebate checks sent out.
Obviously people are not struggling because they have to be current on their mortgage with no delinquencies in 6 months.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now, if their mortgages are current with one late payment in the last 12 months, why in the hell do they need help to begin with? And since 80% of people enrolled in these programs end up foreclosed on anyway, why are we continuing to pour money into this?

Looks like the OP is the only one ‘stuck on stupid.’

By refinancing to a lower interest rate monthly payments decrease. That will help homeowners who are current stay current, those near the brink move into more stable territory, particularly with regard to increases in food and fuel prices, and free up extra cash with the goal to increase consumer spending, the engine of the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now, if their mortgages are current with one late payment in the last 12 months, why in the hell do they need help to begin with? And since 80% of people enrolled in these programs end up foreclosed on anyway, why are we continuing to pour money into this?

Looks like the OP is the only one ‘stuck on stupid.’

By refinancing to a lower interest rate monthly payments decrease. That will help homeowners who are current stay current, those near the brink move into more stable territory, particularly with regard to increases in food and fuel prices, and free up extra cash with the goal to increase consumer spending, the engine of the economy.

So why dont we just let EVERYONE refi their mortgage to lower payments and really get the economy going?

Geez, where do people get these ideas?

 

[The T]

Here we go again. Why is Obama rolling out yet another soon-to-fail program to protect people from their own stupidity? I know the answer: the election is next year. But seriously. Will this guy ever get around to governing, like for real?
Obama to Announce New Program to Help Struggling Homeowners | ABC News - Yahoo! News
Note the requirements:

While administration officials say it will help thousands of homeowners, the program has its caveats. Only those homeowners whose mortgages are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be eligible for refinancing. They must have good credit and must have kept up with their mortgage payments, with no late payment in the past six months and no more than one late payment in the past 12 months. Additionally, the mortgage must have been sold to the agencies before May 31, 2009, and not been refinanced previously under the Home Affordable Refinance Program. The loan-to-value ratio has to be greater than 80 percent.

Now, if their mortgages are current with one late payment in the last 12 months, why in the hell do they need help to begin with? And since 80% of people enrolled in these programs end up foreclosed on anyway, why are we continuing to pour money into this?

A few words...political vote buying scheme with taxpayer money that caused the problem in the first place.

 

[mudwhistle]

Now, if their mortgages are current with one late payment in the last 12 months, why in the hell do they need help to begin with? And since 80% of people enrolled in these programs end up foreclosed on anyway, why are we continuing to pour money into this?

Looks like the OP is the only one ‘stuck on stupid.’

By refinancing to a lower interest rate monthly payments decrease. That will help homeowners who are current stay current, those near the brink move into more stable territory, particularly with regard to increases in food and fuel prices, and free up extra cash with the goal to increase consumer spending, the engine of the economy.

Talking about stuck on stupid.

There's no reason to refinance unless the benefits outweigh the negatives.

This merely lowers your payment but if the economy turns around in the next couple of years people that are underwater will discover that if they had waited they would have equity in their homes and 20 years less in payments if they had just stuck it out. They were already making their payments. Getting out of debt is more important.

Instead the bank will own their home longer making retirement impossible for 30 years.

The only reason you would want to extend the loan is if you wanted to take some of your equity out to pay off smaller high interest loans to lesson your monthly expenses or do home improvement.

And let's not forget why Obama is offering this in the first place. He's simply relaxing the draconian regulations he himself put in place. This is no deal. Obama has after all caused this situation in the first place. I have properties I've been trying to refinance and can't because of Dodd-Frank. Nobody can take advantage of new regulations other then new buyers and people with lots of money to pay down on a loan. This is also a tremendous risk for any lender because the loans will be underwater for at least 5 years, maybe 10.

 

[JoeB131]

Gee, you dont think the borrowers also had responsibility--maybe even more--to look at it and say, Honey, if they cut back your overtime we won't be able to afford this?
At the time it all seemed reasonable. Because with rising prices if he couldn't afford it he could sell and get out from under it and the bank would be paid off. Real estate always goes up,was the adage. And over the long haul that's true.

But who can really predict. When I calculated out my mortgage in 2004, I took into account my base salary, even though at the time, overtime was ample. I bought a modest condo.

And I was keeping ahead of it for the first three years, no problem.

Then in 2007, I ran up about $50,000 in medical bills. Most of it was covered by insurance, but the part I was left to pay was considerable.

Then in 2008, my company downsized all it's long-serving employees because the hungry waifs would work for less. I'm sure the 50K I cost their insurance company had something to do with it.

Now, I'm still keeping up and doing the right thing, and I wouldn't think of defaulting or taking a government bailout. But clearly, "worst economic disaster in 80 years" was not factored into my calculations.

so why should I get less consideration than the greedy bastards who caused this mess and got bailouts?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee, you dont think the borrowers also had responsibility--maybe even more--to look at it and say, Honey, if they cut back your overtime we won't be able to afford this?
At the time it all seemed reasonable. Because with rising prices if he couldn't afford it he could sell and get out from under it and the bank would be paid off. Real estate always goes up,was the adage. And over the long haul that's true.

But who can really predict. When I calculated out my mortgage in 2004, I took into account my base salary, even though at the time, overtime was ample. I bought a modest condo.

And I was keeping ahead of it for the first three years, no problem.

Then in 2007, I ran up about $50,000 in medical bills. Most of it was covered by insurance, but the part I was left to pay was considerable.

Then in 2008, my company downsized all it's long-serving employees because the hungry waifs would work for less. I'm sure the 50K I cost their insurance company had something to do with it.

Now, I'm still keeping up and doing the right thing, and I wouldn't think of defaulting or taking a government bailout. But clearly, "worst economic disaster in 80 years" was not factored into my calculations.

so why should I get less consideration than the greedy bastards who caused this mess and got bailouts?

Huh? WTF you talking about, LeRoy?
Newsflash: Not every borrower is you. Plenty of them bought way too much house because they thought overtime would continue forever. And banks thought increasing property values would continue forever.
Some banks got bailed out because they posed "systemic risk." Does your default on your mortgage pose systemic risk? No. Therefore you don't get one.

 

[Listening]

Now, if their mortgages are current with one late payment in the last 12 months, why in the hell do they need help to begin with? And since 80% of people enrolled in these programs end up foreclosed on anyway, why are we continuing to pour money into this?

Looks like the OP is the only one ‘stuck on stupid.’

By refinancing to a lower interest rate monthly payments decrease. That will help homeowners who are current stay current, those near the brink move into more stable territory, particularly with regard to increases in food and fuel prices, and free up extra cash with the goal to increase consumer spending, the engine of the economy.

Why not just give them the cash to spend directly ?

After all, you only need pluck it from the Ried/Pelosi cash tree and no one gets hurt.

 

[McDowell's]

The crunch of our collapsed economy! My house isn't in this dog fight so to speak but I know others that are. Besides that isn't the point.

The housing market is holding the entire economy hostage. You free up a couple hundred dollars a month in home owners pockets and watch the buying power it gives. That's a direct infusion of blood into our half dead economy. Not to mention the added stability it gives to the housing market.

Forget for a fucking moment that Obama is president and look at the upside as contrasted to the risks. No tax payer money infused unless a home goes under. Which wouldn't matter because F & F are already on the hook. Remove some imbalance in the value of homes. The program is NOT MANDATORY. I'm not seeing the risks.

Again like I said in my topic. I don't give a rats ass how this makes Obama look if for once it can actually have an impact on the economy as a whole and not just one group of friends.

Show me where this is a risk to tax payers and ill bail on this ship. Concrete evidence, not I hate Obama so its bad.

First, there is nothing concrete in this proposal. So there is unlimited risk that in the final construction and implementation there will be cost to the tax payers. I don't give a good god damn if its fucking Obama, Bush, or Mr. Roger's - it's all the federal government and the federal government likes to spend money.

Second, a few people have already pointed out the BLATANT, OBVIOUS truth that in its current form this is involving Fannie/Freddie mortgages. Both agencies are currently borrowing money from the federal government to make their required dividend payments to the federal government for their bailouts by the tax payer. So reducing cash flow to those entities WILL cost the tax payer more money. It's a fact and has nothing to do with Obama or the Incredible Mr. Ed. If you want to ignore it and continually pretend like no one has mentioned that fact in this very thread, go ahead. That doesn't make you open minded - it makes you the exact opposite.

Third, this has a lot of potential to diminish the availability of credit. Again, there will be reduced cash flow to Fannie/Freddie which in turn will result in less available capital to acquire more loans which will in turn mean banks will be less willing to lend. So people who were completely out of the loop of the whole mortgage crisis have the potential of being hurt by this. Additionally, people who lost their homes and are back on their feet are going to face a tougher time finding financing to get back in the game.

You say people dislike this primarily because of their opposition to Obama, yet all I've really seen out of you in support is some obscene attempt to look high minded will ignoring the facts of the situation.

If I'm high minded your simply bloviating out your ass. As you stated there isn't a concrete plan out yet so all your opposition is kinda moot. I'm of the mind that I will wait and see what is finally produced. As it stands now no tax funds have been offered and that's about all that matters to me. And as I stated I'm not ignoring any facts because without a final proposal their are no facts so give it a rest.

I didn't say you were high minded, I said you are trying to appear high minded. There's a distinct difference - especially when you fail miserably at the attempt.

Also notice the highlighted portion of my post. I'm talking about the currently floated ideas. That's not bloviating, that's responding to the proposal in it's current state. Under the current proposal they are talking only about Fannie/Freddie backed mortgages. You have repeatedly stated you see nothing wrong with this plan in its current form; I'm sharing with you some major short falls in the current form. If I'm "bloviating" then wtf have you been doing starting a thread with the notion of "proving you're not a partisan" and then posting in here that you haven't heard anything but "I hate Obama" arguments. That's unadulterated horse shit.

You obviously aren't of the wait and see mindset. If you were, you wouldn't be calling out everyone on this message board as being blind partisans and Obama haters for looking at the CURRENT proposal and saying it doesn't pass muster - all the while falling all over yourself defying anyone to disagree with you.

If anyone needs to give it a rest it is you, as all I am doing is responding to your infantile rhetoric. By all means stop and I won't have anything to refute.

 

[McDowell's]

P.S. Tax funds are ALREADY on the table simply because of the current reality of Fannie/Freddie. I ALREADY told you that just proving further you want to ignore the facts of the situation. Fannie/Freddie are currently borrowing funds from the Treasury in order to pay the required dividends from their bailout. What happens when you decrease the cash flow to Fannie/Freddie? They have to borrow less? Yeah right. It's just a matter of current realities that tax payer funds are involved.

 

[Maple]

Here we go again. Why is Obama rolling out yet another soon-to-fail program to protect people from their own stupidity? I know the answer: the election is next year. But seriously. Will this guy ever get around to governing, like for real?
Obama to Announce New Program to Help Struggling Homeowners | ABC News - Yahoo! News
Note the requirements:

While administration officials say it will help thousands of homeowners, the program has its caveats. Only those homeowners whose mortgages are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be eligible for refinancing. They must have good credit and must have kept up with their mortgage payments, with no late payment in the past six months and no more than one late payment in the past 12 months. Additionally, the mortgage must have been sold to the agencies before May 31, 2009, and not been refinanced previously under the Home Affordable Refinance Program. The loan-to-value ratio has to be greater than 80 percent.

Now, if their mortgages are current with one late payment in the last 12 months, why in the hell do they need help to begin with? And since 80% of people enrolled in these programs end up foreclosed on anyway, why are we continuing to pour money into this?

Yes, why would these people need help, Loan to value has to be greater than 80%?? Thats typical, nothing new there, it was required for any home I ever bought, I had to come up with a 20% down payment. Who is he trying to kid?? You are right, this is all nothing but politics.