Oh Dear God!! Not again

[MarcATL]

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 is criminal...right?

 

[g5000]

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?

Sit back and take a look at reality. It will help.

The credit meltdown was GLOBAL!

Global. Say it with me: GLOBAL.

Iceland melted down. Royal Bank of Scotland melted down. All the banks of Ireland melted down. Northern Rock of England melted down. German banks, Spanish banks.

Now ask yourself how some negroes caused all that.

I am pretty sure NEGROES ARE THIN ON THE GROUND IN ICELAND.


Now take a look at what is going on in Europe right now. Gee, that looks awfully familiar, don't it?

Same exact financial instruments wreaking havoc. Same panic about "credit events" being triggered by defaults.

It's the same damn shit, different ******* day.

Get up off the ******* negroes and wake up to reality.

The culprits? Goldman Sachs (not subject to the CRA, by the way). Lehman Brothers (also not subject to the CRA). Shit, I could make a very long list of banks all around the world and their structured finance products which crashed the world economy and has brought us right back to the very same abyss just three years later. And not one is connected to the CRA.

The CRA scapegoat was conjured up within days of Lehman Brothers' meltdown by partisan hacks who haven't a clue how high finance works. They didn't even know Lehman was not subject to the CRA! These people were so profoundly ignorant of the causes of the crash that they stupidly asked Dick Fuld during a congressional hearing how much the CRA had to do with his company blowing up.

Jesus, it does not get any dumber than that.

But the CRA zombie scapegoat lives on. Some people are convinced that negroes just HAD to be responsible somehow. Even though they are literally in the middle of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. See all those houses up for sale in your town? Those aren't negroes who bought more than they could afford! Those are WHITE MIDDLE CLASS people who bought more than they could afford.

You see, the more money you make, the more DEBT you can be talked into taking. And the more debt you take on, the more product Wall Street can make out of it. Why the **** would they want petty debt from negroes when they could roll far more product out the door from white people's debt?

Common ******* sense.

"Sub-prime" =/= "low income". Far from it. I bet most of your white neighbors who bought a house in the 2000s got a subprime loan. Pick-A-Pay, ARM, etc.

Guarantee it.

The ratings agencies went along with it, the politicians got to claim credit for more people getting into homes, and people piled HELOC debt on top of their mortgage debt so they could buy SUVs and boats and Disney vacations.

Who is to blame? EVERYONE!!!


Europe? Exact same game, just different underlying assets. Instead of middle white people's debt from all around the white world underneath it all, it is government debt. From there, everything else is identical.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

Sit back and take a look at reality. It will help.

The credit meltdown was GLOBAL!

Global. Say it with me: GLOBAL.

Iceland melted down. Royal Bank of Scotland melted down. All the banks of Ireland melted down. Northern Rock of England melted down. German banks, Spanish banks.

Now ask yourself how some negroes caused all that.

I am pretty sure NEGROES ARE THIN ON THE GROUND IN ICELAND.


Now take a look at what is going on in Europe right now. Gee, that looks awfully familiar, don't it?

Same exact financial instruments wreaking havoc. Same panic about "credit events" being triggered by defaults.

It's the same damn shit, different ******* day.

Get up off the ******* negroes and wake up to reality.

The culprits? Goldman Sachs (not subject to the CRA, by the way). Lehman Brothers (also not subject to the CRA). Shit, I could make a very long list of banks all around the world and their structured finance products which crashed the world economy and has brought us right back to the very same abyss just three years later. And not one is connected to the CRA.

The CRA scapegoat was conjured up within days of Lehman Brothers' meltdown by partisan hacks who haven't a clue how high finance works. They didn't even know Lehman was not subject to the CRA! These people were so profoundly ignorant of the causes of the crash that they stupidly asked Dick Fuld during a congressional hearing how much the CRA had to do with his company blowing up.

Jesus, it does not get any dumber than that.

But the CRA zombie scapegoat lives on. Some people are convinced that negroes just HAD to be responsible somehow. Even though they are literally in the middle of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. See all those houses up for sale in your town? Those aren't negroes who bought more than they could afford! Those are WHITE MIDDLE CLASS people who bought more than they could afford.

You see, the more money you make, the more DEBT you can be talked into taking. And the more debt you take on, the more product Wall Street can make out of it. Why the **** would they want petty debt from negroes when they could roll far more product out the door from white people's debt?

Common ******* sense.

"Sub-prime" =/= "low income". Far from it. I bet most of your white neighbors who bought a house in the 2000s got a subprime loan. Pick-A-Pay, ARM, etc.

Guarantee it.

The ratings agencies went along with it, the politicians got to claim credit for more people getting into homes, and people piled HELOC debt on top of their mortgage debt so they could buy SUVs and boats and Disney vacations.

Who is to blame? EVERYONE!!!


Europe? Exact same game, just different underlying assets. Instead of middle white people's debt from all around the white world underneath it all, it is government debt. From there, everything is identical.

Bravo. BRAVO!!! B-R-A-V-O!!!!!!

*One-man standing ovation*

 

[8537]

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.

No, the agreement is reached because the government is funding a portion of the risk. If you actually read something instead of getting all your info from Hannity you'd know this

 

[Sunshine]

Makes me wonder why I bothered all these years to keep my mortgage paid

Doesn't it though? The wrong people are getting the rewards these days.

 

[naturegirl]

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?

So if you don't have a job or took a part time job so you have some income, will you qualify for a re-fi??

Did you see how much this was going to cost...........the TAXPAYERS?? Here, let me remind you.

The estimated cost of the program would be $5 billion to $10 billion, depending on the number of participants.

I don't know about you but I believe there is a huge difference in 5 and 10 billion. So this tells me he's only spewing more crap. Oh and here's who might qualify if they have a job.

Only houses whose values fall within F.H.A. guidelines, from about $270,000 to $730,000 depending on location, would qualify.

The F.H.A. would use the bank fee to insure itself against the credit risk of taking on the new mortgages, a White House official said.

Yea the banks are going to voluntarily do this, right.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Or have them rent an apartment. What about rent? Is that illegal these days or something? Maybe the people who rent who have been saving their money up for a home should be given the first right of refusal on a repo house. That would be fair, IMO.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Banks don't want ownership of the homes. They would have to spend more money to maintain them. And they don't want to do that.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Cite the exact number please.

 

[Sunshine]

Whatever happened to the successful 50% down and 10 years to repay? If we just went back to that circa 1935 system we'd stem almost all future foreclosures!

What could possibly go wrong?

They didn't have nikes and suv's in the 30s. People didn't blow their money on junk in those days.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

People who choose to swim with the sharks risk getting eaten alive.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

I'm not suggesting the repossessing party doesn't have to compensate the owner for the equity - that's part of what would reduce the rent, plus the lender would need to buy out any equity.

And this as an option, where both sides must agree. Obama's idea being another option.

Maybe you should brush up on mortgage law. If you lose the house, you lose the equity. That's the gamble to take. And a bank can repo that home and sell it for what is owed. They don't have to try and get your equity back for you. You are SOL. Everyone knows that when they go in. If you don't have the stomach for a 30 year mortgage then don't get into one.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

People who choose to swim with the sharks risk getting eaten alive.

Most do not realize, this is helping keep housing suppressed. In some areas property values are still on the decline.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

People who choose to swim with the sharks risk getting eaten alive.

Most do not realize, this is helping keep housing suppressed. In some areas property values are still on the decline.

Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

I'm not suggesting the repossessing party doesn't have to compensate the owner for the equity - that's part of what would reduce the rent, plus the lender would need to buy out any equity.

And this as an option, where both sides must agree. Obama's idea being another option.

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.

"I knows all 'bout birthing babies."

"I don't no nothing 'bout birthing babies."

Depends on the circumstances! Dontcha dig?

 

[Sunshine]

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.

No, you're too stupid to follow the conversation. What I said was that allowing a foreclosure forces the neighbors to pay - in declining home values, a less desirable neighborhood and lost tax revenues.

So people who can't afford to pay their mortgage are 'desirable' neighbors! Whoah!

 

[Sunshine]

I'm not suggesting the repossessing party doesn't have to compensate the owner for the equity - that's part of what would reduce the rent, plus the lender would need to buy out any equity.

And this as an option, where both sides must agree. Obama's idea being another option.

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.

Wrong. In a default, the owner is entitled to NO equity. Go read your mortgage agreement.
And in some states called "Title States", the bank holds the title to the house, and if you don't pay they can sell without even taking you to court. Other states are "Mortgage States". They have to take you to court to foreclose.

The deed of trustMain article: trust deed (real estate)
The deed of trust is a deed by the borrower to a trustee for the purposes of securing a debt. In most states, it also merely creates a lien on the title and not a title transfer, regardless of its terms. It differs from a mortgage in that, in many states, it can be foreclosed by a non-judicial sale held by the trustee through a "power of sale".[13] It is also possible to foreclose them through a judicial proceeding.[citation needed]

Deeds of trust to secure repayments of debts should not be confused with trust instruments that are sometimes called deeds of trust but that are used to create trusts for other purposes, such as estate planning. Though there are superficial similarities in the form, many states hold deeds of trust to secure repayment of debts do not create true trust arrangements.[citation needed]

Mortgage law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sunshine]

He already told us, Steven.

He wants us to pay for it.

No, you're too stupid to follow the conversation. What I said was that allowing a foreclosure forces the neighbors to pay - in declining home values, a less desirable neighborhood and lost tax revenues.

The last sentence in your post I quoted read like a suggestion.

But you still advocate rewarding people that didn't make their mortgage payments by allowing them to make rent payments....

What happens when they don't make their rent?
Turn it into Sec.8 housing and let the government take it over and lower their monthly payment even more thus forcing the rest of us to actually pay for their failure?????

 

[Sunshine]

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!

They don't have to 'eat' the loss. They can sell the home for what is owed.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Refinancing at a lower rate means you pay LESS, not the same over a longer period of time.

Not fair to all those who lived responsibley, didn't take on more than they could chew, and paid their debts. THIS IS SO WRONG!