Oh Dear God!! Not again

[8537]

Why should the lender buy out the equity?

A montage is nothing more then a rent to own agreement. The equity.rent is the gamble that you lost.

(1) I didnt' say all of equity, but the owner is entitled to a portion based on the agreement, and rightfullt so.

(2) a mortgage is absolutely, positively NOT a rent-to-own agreement. It's a third party transaction in an exchange, and the person offering the "rental" in this case loses all rights upon execution of the sale.

You suggest that the lender buy out the equity.... And the owner is "entitled" ... there in lies the problem. They are entitled to pay for their mortgage... and that's it.

The lender buy out a portion of the equity that both sides agree to based on what has been paid. If you don't like that arrangement, take it up with the bank,

And what agreement is that. I have never seen in any mortgage with an agreement stipulating that if you default on your loan, that you get a portion of your money or equitey back

The agreement they reach.

No? ... you dont think its more or less a rent to own a property? Think about. You pay every month for the privileged of living in the house you choose and think you can pay for. If you cant pay for it..... you are evicted.

No, I know it is vastly different from a rent-to-own agreement. It is not "nothing more than a rent to own agreement." It is a wholly different, in-no-way comparable legal agreement relative to a lease. It grants a wholly different set of rights and remedies to both parties (or all three parties in the case of a mortgage.)

 

[8537]

It doesn't punish them, that's for sure.

It sends the message that there's no consequences for your actions....or inactions in this case.

I see. So you prefer banks act against their own self interest in the name of punishing the people they were dumb enough to lend to?

I would suggest that the banks take the homes and offer them back on the market for sale again.

Yes, indeed! Because THAT idea has been working just swimmingly for banks so far. Don't mitigate the loss, eat it!

 

[Jarhead]

It doesn't punish them, that's for sure.

It sends the message that there's no consequences for your actions....or inactions in this case.

I see. So you prefer banks act against their own self interest in the name of punishing the people they were dumb enough to lend to?

I would suggest that the banks take the homes and offer them back on the market for sale again.

Banks do not want to be in the real estate business. When a house forecloses, most of those that default strip the house down to nothing...they take all of th appliances...they take any copper they can find...they take light fixtures....heck..they take light bulbs...anything of value that is not nailed to the floor.

Furthermore, they rarely keep the house in good shape for the months prior to foreclosing.

Usually, the look and smell like dumps...even the nicest of homes.

And the bnaks let them sit there until someone wants to buy....and that can take months if not years.

We had a foreclosure down the block from me. They left the place a shit hole. This past summer, I mowed the front lawn twice...and some other neighbors did it a few times as well...it is a real eyesore.

 

[naturegirl]

Did any of you actually hear the speech?? I would suggest you hear what Obama actually said. Going to find a video to post so the doubters will know what he said and how he said it.

Didn't seem like he was willing to work with anyone, he just wants this done............NOW!!

 

[naturegirl]

Can't find a video, yet. I'm sure it will be available soon.

Here's one part of the speech for you to ponder:

The plan, which was first mentioned by the president during the State of the Union address, will cost an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion. According to CNN, the president doesn’t plan to add to the deficit, but impose a fee on large banks. Congress has rejected trying to tax banks in the past and the proposal could have a tough time getting past it.

“It is wrong for anybody to suggest that the only option for struggling, responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom,” Obama said, The New York Times reported. “I refuse to accept that, and so do the American people.”

The proposal creates an even bigger divide between Obama and leading Republican opponent Mitt Romney, who said the nation’s housing market must hit rock bottom before homeowners can expect relief, The Times reported. It also reinforced the belief that Obama’s advisers foresee his opponent to be Romney.

Obama proposes home refinancing assistance program | GlobalPost

 

[DiamondDave]

Ah, yes......more o' those (Reagan-style) easy answers.​

Yeah troll.. to hell with personal responsibility when you advocate big nanny government to kiss all your personal boo boos

....And, not expect the SAME level of personal responsibility from banks & Wall Street, because they were Too Big To FAIL.

Yeah.....makes a lot o' sense.

Stupid Fuckin' Teabaggers​

Funny... Conservatives call for the elimination of the handouts on ALL sides...

But nice try, asshole troll

 

[RoadVirus]

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

The definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[bripat9643]

How does one equate a bank reaching mutual agreement to rent a property with rewarding people?

What happens when they don't make their rent?

State landlord-tenant law would apply.

The "agreement" is only reached because the government is holding a gun to the heads of the bank executives. Voluntary agreements don't require any kind of government participation or superivsion.

 

[bripat9643]

I see. So you prefer banks act against their own self interest in the name of punishing the people they were dumb enough to lend to?

Banks are quite capable of acting in their own self-interest without government supervision.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

so force them to move? Odd, i saw the same answer for another poster who whined about some section 8 people.

Amusing

Yes.. people move when they can't afford the home they're in.. not stomp their feet and demand that the taxpayer or bank or whomever make it all better for them.

 

[amrchaos]

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

There is a difference between being underwater and being foreclosed on.

When you are underwater, the value of the house is less than the mortage taken out on the house. It has nothing to do with being late on payments. If you refinance the home according to the true value of the house, the mortage suppose to go down. In truth, that would most likely make matters worst since the banks probably are taken the value of the mortage into account when they calculate their assets and so forth.

People that are underwater on their homes tend to quit making payments on their house. Sometimes for a loss of a job, a few times is because the homebuyer is getting the crap beating out of them by the bank!

This tend to suggest that there maybe some "Zombie banks" walking around. They exist by inaccurate accounting.

 

[Stephanie]

Guess she was right after all...aint that Obama great.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI]Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Grandma]

The original loans were locked in. Fannie Mae ruled that banks could NOT refinance homes at a lower rate. Now Obama is ordering a refinance option at a lower rate, one that can actually keep people in their homes. Say you bought a $100,000 house, you're paying around $850 per month on it. Refinancing means you will pay for a longer period, but with lower rates your payments could go down to $650. That $200/month can make a difference on whether or not you can keep your home.

 

[Vel]

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

This just goes to show...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gxKStPXyn8]Ron White - Stupid is forever - YouTube[/ame]

You Can't Fix Stupid!!

 

[g5000]

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.

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

Where in your link did you get the idea that people who are making their house payments would not qualify for refinancing?

 

[g5000]

What ever happened to the successful 20/80 debt to income, ratio before qualifying to buy a house? Answer: Jimmy Carter.

This claim is total bullshit.

 

[gallantwarrior]

No, it's not.

Prove it is not.

Simple enough. The act under which banks lent mortgages to low-income buyers who should not have been qualified for the loans constituted only a tiny, insignificant fraction of the defaulted mortgages which triggered the failure of the credit default swaps that brought down the financial sector and plunged the economy into recession. In fact, since credit default swaps weren't built on those particular mortgages, it constituted no part of it at all.

The OP is simply repeating a right-wing talking point that was a scapegoat from the beginning, intended to divert attention from the real culprits in the economic meltdown. There is no reason to fear a repeat of the chain of events resulting from such a thing, because in actual fact it did not.

Who are the real culprits in the economic meltdown?

 

[Ed Spacer]

If you cant make the payments,dont take the loan.sorry sounds cold,but its part of the lack of personal responsibility this country is taking. Its a contract,im sorry.plain and simple.

 

[g5000]

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.

What the hell gives you the idea anyone is being gifted with a free house with this refinancing proposal?

It is extremely ironic you people sit in judgement of others for supposedly being financially irresponsible when you then make statements that demonstrate extreme financial ignorance.


All this proposal is trying to do is LOWER THE INTEREST PAYMENT on a mortgage!

It is not lowering the principal, which was the price they paid for the house. Do you people get that?

The only effect lower interest payments will have is that the banks will make less profit on the loans they made or bought in the secondary market.

 

[g5000]

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?

What, exactly, has to be paid for?