Oh Dear God!! Not again

[Luddly Neddite]

You are right. It didn't force banks. Other than that it is the same thing though. Where does the money come from?

So, the previous policy didn't force banks to make loans or refi.

The new policy doesn't force banks to make loans or refi....

But you take issue with my statement anyway? What exactly do you find incorrect or unpalatable about my statement?

Sorry I was wrong. I was to quick with my reply.
This time Obama is going to far. The government has no right to force banks to refinance.

WHAT??

How is the president "forcing banks to refinance"??

Where do people GET this crap???

 

[LordBrownTrout]

BTW, if "you" have a payment that's too high, now is the time to refinance.

Just common sense.

That's voluntary. O proposal forces banks. Very bad situation.

 

[StevenC]

So, the previous policy didn't force banks to make loans or refi.

The new policy doesn't force banks to make loans or refi....

But you take issue with my statement anyway? What exactly do you find incorrect or unpalatable about my statement?

Sorry I was wrong. I was to quick with my reply.
This time Obama is going to far. The government has no right to force banks to refinance.

This proposal does not force banks to refinance.

Yea I just realised that. Sorry. I was wrong agian.
I still think it would be better to move them into cheaper houses.

 

[8537]

Sorry I was wrong. I was to quick with my reply.
This time Obama is going to far. The government has no right to force banks to refinance.

This proposal does not force banks to refinance.

Yea I just realised that. Sorry. I was wrong agian.
I still think it would be better to move them into cheaper houses.

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

 

[auditor0007]

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

Instead of refinancing they should move the families into cheaper homes that they can afford. Not force others to pay for peoples bad decisions.

you create the same externality - all the neighbors are left with an empty piece of property. It would make more sense to give the bank possession in exchange for a discounted rental agreement.

Now that would make sense. Unfortunately, not even the bankers are intelligent enough to figure this one out. If it doesn't translate into instant profits, they aren't interested, even if it means they end up with more foreclosed homes than they know what to do with. And as the foreclosed homes sit empty, their values fall even further because they fall into disrepair.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So, the previous policy didn't force banks to make loans or refi.

The new policy doesn't force banks to make loans or refi....

But you take issue with my statement anyway? What exactly do you find incorrect or unpalatable about my statement?

Sorry I was wrong. I was to quick with my reply.
This time Obama is going to far. The government has no right to force banks to refinance.

This proposal does not force banks to refinance.

Not directly. "Free and cheap" That doesn't compute unless suspect deals are being proffered.

 

[StevenC]

This proposal does not force banks to refinance.

Yea I just realised that. Sorry. I was wrong agian.
I still think it would be better to move them into cheaper houses.

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

That would work. The reason they don't is they are too narow minded. To stuck on how things have always been done in the past.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sorry I was wrong. I was to quick with my reply.
This time Obama is going to far. The government has no right to force banks to refinance.

This proposal does not force banks to refinance.

Yea I just realised that. Sorry. I was wrong agian.
I still think it would be better to move them into cheaper houses.

So they should give up the equity they've worked hard to earn?

Fact is, they already are in "cheaper homes" because their homes are worth less than when they bought them.

This would also benefit others both directly and indirectly because banks will lose money if they have to take the property back.

It will not help our country to force 10 million families out on to the street.

 

[syrenn]

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

I am not saying people losing their homes is not a problem. But it is THEIR problem.

Yes, but it's the financial institutions problem too. They knew the risks when they signed. And YOUR problem as well. It's a large part of the reason the economy fell to begin with, and a larger part of the reason it can't rebound sufficiently.

Right... so who's fault is it. The people who wanted more then they could afford.

Granted the banks are not faultless in all of this....they enabled the lending to people who should not have had loans for the amounts they wanted in the first place.

Greed on both sides of it.



Personally i would rather have a slow recovery..... a real recovery, not another band aid to porp up the problem. Its good to have the bubble burst and bring it all down to the real.

 

[hortysir]

0bama is going to force banks to refinance mortgages for folks that are underwater with their home values.

Isn't this what happened the first time?

No, it's not.

0bama is going to force banks to refinance mortgages for folks that are underwater with their home values.

Isn't this what happened the first time??

No, it's not.

0bama is going to force banks to refinance mortgages for folks that are underwater with their home values.

Isn't this what happened the first time?? And what about those homeowners that don't have jobs and are making their house payments from their savings and borrowing from family members?? They won't qualify for a mortgage if they don't have a job.

What about those homeowners that have taken part time jobs and are barely squeaking by. If their income will not allow the mortgage repayment they won't qualify for a new loan.

Isn't this how we got in this mess?? The government messing with the lending industry to let people buy houses they couldn't afford.

Mortgage | Homeowner Bill of Rights | Barack Obama | The Daily Caller

What ever happened to the idea that if you cant pay your mortgage you lose the house.

Buying home is a GAMBLE. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

Fuck that!

Classic redistribution, there, Karl.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

 

[StevenC]

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

How are you going to pay for it.
And should we reward all those that make poor, or even stupid, decisions?

 

[syrenn]

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

Tell me something... why should someone who buys more of a home then they can afford.... win it by default?

by this reasoning.... i should go out and buy a mansion with grounds and a pool.... cry that i cant afford the mortgage....and get to keep it becasue i am defaulting on my loan.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

How do you pay for "free and cheap"?

 

[asaratis]

What ever happened to the idea that if you cant pay your mortgage you lose the house.

Buying home is a GAMBLE. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

Instead of refinancing they should move the families into cheaper homes that they can afford. Not force others to pay for peoples bad decisions.

But, you see...forcing others to pay for others is good communism.

Obama is a fucking Marxist! His plans are good for the cause.

 

[hortysir]

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

How are you going to pay for it.
And should we reward all those that make poor, or even stupid, decisions?

He already told us, Steven.

He wants us to pay for it.

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

 

[DiamondDave]

i don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but i'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, big business stealing from those who cannot fight back. It would hurt the big businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

i would prefer a win-win situation such as what president obama is suggesting. But, as i said earlier, the repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

tell me something... Why should someone who buys more of a home then they can afford.... Win it by default?

By this reasoning.... I should go out and buy a mansion with grounds and a pool.... Cry that i cant afford the mortgage....and get to keep it becasue i am defaulting on my loan.

bingo

 

[Old Rocks]

'Gasland' Journalists Arrested At Hearing By Order Of House Republicans (UPDATES)

Fox did not have formal Capitol Hill credentials, but such formalities are rarely enforced against high-profile journalists. Temporary passes are easy to obtain, and if Republicans had objected on procedural grounds, they could have simply sent the the crew to the front desk, rather than ordering police to arrest journalists. The right to a free press is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Documentary crews are almost never denied access to public meetings of elected government officials.

A separate ABC News crew, which did have official Capitol Hill credentials, was also denied access to the public hearing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

0bama is going to force banks to refinance mortgages for folks that are underwater with their home values.

Isn't this what happened the first time?? And what about those homeowners that don't have jobs and are making their house payments from their savings and borrowing from family members?? They won't qualify for a mortgage if they don't have a job.

What about those homeowners that have taken part time jobs and are barely squeaking by. If their income will not allow the mortgage repayment they won't qualify for a new loan.

Isn't this how we got in this mess?? The government messing with the lending industry to let people buy houses they couldn't afford.

That's what the Teabaggers will tell you.....but, they've got their heads up their asses.

The FACTS (as usual) are entirely DIFFERENT!!!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKKvMJeBBSA]Q&A: Leslie & Andrew Cockburn - YouTube[/ame]

See: 5:00 thru 12:00​

 

[8537]

Fuck that!

Classic redistribution, there, Karl.

Whatever does that mean, Harry?