Now he's after your home.

[CastleBravo]

Obama mulls rental option for homeowners

U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead, sources familiar with the administration's thinking said on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1429265720090714?rpc=77

Do you not see where this is going?

[Onkel Neal]

If they've fallen behind on their mortgage payments, then they lose their home anyway. Only a Commie thinks delinquent homeowners deserve otherwise.

[CastleBravo]

If they've fallen behind their payments, then they lose their home anyway. Only a Commie thinks delinquent homeowners deserve otherwise.

Exactly! From your mouth to God's ears....Obama is a Commie.

[Platapus]

I would like to see some more detail than what was in that little Reuters article before opining.

[CastleBravo]

I would like to see some more detail than what was in that little Reuters article before opining.

You are asking for detail out of an administration which lacks it until it is too late. The stimulus package is one example.

[Respenus]

The Americans will linch me for this, yet it has to be said. Goldman Sachs has made $3.44bn net profit in the second quarter and is expected to make even more profit by the end of the year. Why not take their extra money they want to spent on bonuses and not investments and use it to pay some of your bills. I am certain that home owners would be most pleased.

[CastleBravo]

The Americans will linch me for this, yet it has to be said. Goldman Sachs has made $3.44bn net profit in the second quarter and is expected to make even more profit by the end of the year. Why not take their extra money they want to spent on bonuses and not investments and use it to pay some of your bills. I am certain that home owners would be most pleased.

Good question! The US taxpayer owns GS. But that isn't the plan now is it? The plan is trickle-up poverty. Neal said it when he called BHO a Communist.

[Oberon]

Why are you worried? You've got Chuck Norris for goodness sake!!

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/german-dvds/1685-1.jpg

Problem solved.

[Biggles]

Exactly! From your mouth to God's ears....Obama is a Commie.

You find that shocking, then listen to this:

Your former president was a republican!:o


:D

[CastleBravo]

You find that shocking, then listen to this:

Your former president was a republican!:o


:D

Your former president aswell. But this thread isn't about him. It's about Barack Obama and his Communist policies..

[GoldenRivet]

Do you not see where this is going?

no more private property...:shifty:

im with you dude.

but as long as fat Dems and portly Reps can get their cheeseburgers, starbucks, big screens and new cars they wont give a damn.

congrats America... you got the government you deserve.:stare:

[GoldenRivet]

You are asking for detail out of an administration which lacks it until it is too late. The stimulus package is one example.

you mean the stimulus package congress didnt even bother to read? :stare:

taxation - wouthout - representation.

it caused the last revolution and will cause the one that is going on right now

[Platapus]

You are asking for detail out of an administration which lacks it until it is too late. The stimulus package is one example.

No I am asking more detail from a news service

[CastleBravo]

No I am asking more detail from a news service

Even Helen Thomas doesn't have access, as she complained about recently, what makes you think Mr. Obama will let this out, other than to deny his intentions?

[Biggles]

Your former president aswell. But this thread isn't about him. It's about Barack Obama and his Communist policies..

Haven't presidents in Sweden mate, just pointing that out:03:

[CastleBravo]

Haven't presidents in Sweden mate, just pointing that out:03:

That is a very good point Biggles. You don't have a US congress either.
Nor does Britain, ,France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, or any other EU country. So why pray tell, are you so willing to interject your opinion into what is surely a US argument? I don't recall interjecting my opinion in your internal affairs.

:)

[Biggles]

That is a very good point Biggles. You don't have a US congress either.
Nor does Britain, ,France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, or any other EU country. So why pray tell, are you so willing to interject your opinion into what is surely a US argument? I don't recall interjecting my opinion in your internal affairs.

:)

That is a very good point CastleBravo.
Yet I don't recall interjecting my opinion in american affairs in this thread. I was just pointing out that the former president of the United States of America was a member of the Republican party. Check it up, I'm sure you'll find plenty of sources that confirms the suggested information in my statement.

:):DL:D:salute:

:up:

[CastleBravo]

That is a very good point CastleBravo.
Yet I don't recall interjecting my opinion in american affairs in this thread. I was just pointing out that the former president of the United States of America was a member of the Republican party. Check it up, I'm sure you'll find plenty of sources that confirms the suggested information in my statement.

:):DL:D

If I erroneously accused you, I beg your forgiveness. But my point is valid. Mr. Obama is a communist and everyone should wake up to the fact. And Europeans should stay out of our politics...even on this board.

[Onkel Neal]

Exactly! From your mouth to God's ears....Obama is a Commie.


Oh? And what about you? What do you suggest should happen to people who default on their house payments?

[CastleBravo]

Oh? And what about you? What do you suggest should happen to people who default on their house payments?

Same as you.

The same thing which would happen to all people who default on their home loans. Eviction/foreclosure, etc.

[Onkel Neal]

Same as you.

The same thing which would happen to all people who default on their home loans. Eviction/foreclosure, etc.

Uh, you better check my statement again, only a Commie thinks delinquent homeowners deserve otherwise. Meaning: Only a Commie thinks delinquent homeowners should keep their homes. Obama wants to take homes from people who stop paying their mortgage, therefore he is no Commie. :O: Banks repossess homes in default all the time, it's routine. Obama is not doing anything different than the age-old capitalist system except allowing them to live in them as renters for a while.

And if Obama is no Commie and is the opposite of you....

[CastleBravo]

But Obama owns the mortgage lenders/banks. How do you feel now?

Country Wide is now Bank of America. How much money did BOA get?
Trickle-up poverty coming to you.

It isn't obvious but it is communism. Like you said. Stick with your original thought.....you were correct.

[Onkel Neal]

I feel fine, thanks. I think you have persuaded me to support Obama from here on, good job.

[Tribesman]

Do you not see where this is going?
True, this is a silly idea.
Imagine the government stopping people being evicted for taking on silly loans that they couldn't maintain.
Its a much better solution to let the banks take the homes back then get the government to house the newly homeless people in other homes and give them section 8 welfare vouchers to pay their new rent.

Damn this gets complicated .
So is either the new proposal of they lose ownership of their homes and the government helps pays their rent or the old one of they lose ownership of their homes and the government helps pay their rent.
Difficult choices , which was the commie one again?

Now of course they could go for the other usual option , kick them out of their homes then pay for them to be housed in hotels, then pay their rent when a house is found, it might be more expensive but it helps out the hotels who are suffering due to the downturn in tourism that goes with a downturn in the economy.

Why do I get the impression that you didn't think this through before you decided to get outraged Bravo?

[CastleBravo]

I feel fine, thanks. I think you have persuaded me to support Obama from here on, good job.

I applaud your decision to take a stand. You are a true American.

[Buddahaid]

NEW YORK, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead, sources familiar with the administration's thinking said on Tuesday.
Under one idea being discussed, delinquent homeowners would surrender ownership of their homes but would continue to live in the property for several years, the sources told Reuters.
Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty.
As part of this plan, jobless borrowers might receive a housing stipend along with regular unemployment benefits, the sources said. (Reporting by Patrick Rucker; Editing by Diane Craft)



The only mention of Obama here is in the attention grabbing headline. What officials in the US government are speaking? This article has no substance and therefore no merit! And even if fact, I fail to see how it would make Obama a communist. The loans are defaulted, the owner loses title and is allowed to rent the property instead of being evicted immediatly. Merely a breathing space.


Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

And the only mention of Obama during his trips in the last week were the attention grabbing headlines?

Listen bud, you sit at the top and all the minions are yours, 22 tsars included.

Obama is going to take away private property. He has personally lived off the public dole since entering Occidental College. Probablly before then.

[Morts]

If I erroneously accused you, I beg your forgiveness. But my point is valid. Mr. Obama is a communist and everyone should wake up to the fact. And Europeans should stay out of our politics...even on this board.
while you're at it, telling us what we can and cant discuss...could you tell subman1 to stay out of our politics:yep:

[CastleBravo]

while you're at it, telling us what we can and cant discuss...could you tell subman1 to stay out of our politics:yep:

I'd be more than happy to. Subman1 stay out of EU politics.

Will you now stay out of US politics? Pledge.

[Buddahaid]

And the only mention of Obama during his trips in the last week were the attention grabbing headlines?

Listen bud, you sit at the top and all the minions are yours, 22 tsars included.

Obama is going to take away private property. He has personally lived off the public dole since entering Occidental College. Probablly before then.

I can't follow your logic. On the one hand, you say TS to the defaulted borrower, on the other, Obama is taking property. How? He's making the borrower default and forcing a sale to himself? You'll have to baby step me through that.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

I can't follow your logic. On the one hand, you say TS to the defaulted borrower, on the other, Obama is taking property. How? He's making the borrower default and forcing a sale to himself? You'll have to baby step me through that.

Buddahaid


Blinded by the light.

Do you own a home? Do you pay your mortgage? If the answer is no to either question...move on. This doesn't concern you.

[UnderseaLcpl]

The Americans will linch me for this, yet it has to be said. Goldman Sachs has made $3.44bn net profit in the second quarter and is expected to make even more profit by the end of the year. Why not take their extra money they want to spent on bonuses and not investments and use it to pay some of your bills. I am certain that home owners would be most pleased.

Yes, that all sounds very resonable in the mind of an economic liberal. Money is here, why not transfer it to where it is needed? Surely, there can't be any kind of complexities along the way. The state can be trusted to re-allocate funds from the fabulously wealthy to the desperately poor, right?

Respenus, I can see where you are coming from on this issue, but one does not simply re-allocate wealth in a market economy, or any successful economy for that matter. The whole point of trade, in any system, is that one is allowed to retain profit from trade. If it were not so, no one would bother to trade. The system would collapse and no one would take the trouble to exchange their own goods or services for others' goods and services.

I do not mean to be offensive or condescending, but minds far greater than yours or mine have attempted to develop systems of wealth redistribution and none of them have ever worked to the benefit of the populace or the nation in the long run. Your well-meaning attempts do not transfer wealth from the wealthy to those who are in need, they simply transfer wealth to the undeservedly wealthy and deceptive persons who have what it takes to succeed in state. If it were so easy to translate executive bonuses into debt-relief or affordable housing programs, there would be a good example of such a thing.

Again, I do not mean to be insulting, but it is hard to be innocuous whilst making such a defined point; Any idiot can say that these excess funds should be transferred here or spent thusly. The state does so all the time.
What you must realize is that no agency exsists to effect efficient transfer of said wealth, other than the market, which is not an agency or organization at all. It is a product grater than the sum of its' parts and it is produced by the conflicting wills of billions of individuals, not some be-all end-all state policy.

Finally, I will tell you that you, and the peoples of every nation that is not the US, should pray for free-market policy and the weakening of the US state. The world has already had a taste of what the US can do when it is united by a common agenda. Would you favor a truly united United States? Perhaps one set upon the agenda of wealth redistribution for the entire globe?
I have no illusions about the power of my nation and I do not trust it. The world is better served by the ferocious competiton of the US free market, rather than the united front it could present. Take a moment and imagine what could be if the US decided to step in and say that the wealth of Germany or Austria or Belgium or England or any other nation should be given to some other nation. The results of such policy would be catastrophic, just as they would be if we aggresvely pursued a policy of redistributing the wealth of our own people. Trust me, you do not want a United States with a common national agenda, or a common international agenda. The world is spared a hell of a lot of pain from the US by virtue of the fact that we do not always operate upon the equation that "this person has more than this person so something should be changed."

I would advise that you have some care before saying that "This wealth would be better spent thusly". Remember which agencies you trust to effect that change, and the effects upon the system of trade we all depend upon to maintain our standards of living.

[CastleBravo]

the weakening of the US state.

That is what it is all about.

[Buddahaid]

Blinded by the light.

Do you own a home? Do you pay your mortgage? If the answer is no to either question...move on. This doesn't concern you.

The answer is yes to both (no debt other than a single mortgage ending in five years with savings in the bank) and your avoiding the question.

Buddahaid

[geetrue]

If I erroneously accused you, I beg your forgiveness. But my point is valid. Mr. Obama is a communist and everyone should wake up to the fact. And Europeans should stay out of our politics...even on this board.

This is no way to make friends ... this is an international audience :up:

I wouldn't click on your link if you had one :arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

I can't follow your logic.
Thats because there is no logic there, CastleBravo has simply gone off on one without giving the topic any thought.
The suggested proposal is just a scheme to attempt to save taxpayers money and prevent a further meltdown of the domestic property sector.

[mookiemookie]

It's about Barack Obama and his Communist policies..

Wait, I thought he was a socialist? The two are mutually exclusive.

You wingnuts can't even get your sloganeering right....

[AVGWarhawk]

I do not think this is a bad thing. Really, some folks are just so far under. How many tent cities do we need? It is a big debacle. However, those that did not screw up and kept up with the mortgage are seeing diminishing returns. I do not feel good about that. I feel I'm getting penalized for doing the right thing. Then talks of removing deductable interest on your home loan for your taxes? :shifty: Where is the incentive anymore?

Also, will this make the government a slum lord? I would venture to guess it would.

[Oberon]

So, the second American Civil War is coming along alright then? Good good, carry on :shucks:

[AVGWarhawk]

So, the second American Civil War is coming along alright then? Good good, carry on :shucks:

Ummmm....how does home mortgages defaulting equate to the American Civil War? :06:

[Oberon]

Eh, just the pro and anti-Obama wars, that's all. :shucks:

[AVGWarhawk]

Eh, just the pro and anti-Obama wars, that's all. :shucks:

I see. I think there is some reality starting to sink in on both sides. Reality one: He is not a rock star and one wave of his hand removes any ills the country and world are facing. Reality two: Those that were never for him are realizing this is a tough position to be in as a person(Obama) and although they were never for him these folks do wish some success for Obama. I'm one of the latter. Really, Obama has done nothing to me. He has done no more that any other politician who raised or lowered taxes, etc. I still moved forward. So, hey, throw in the towel and give the guy a hand or two for some successes. Give him some support on the real issues he faces. Obama is 4 years older than me. Hell, there is no way I would want his job at the moment.

[mookiemookie]

I see. I think there is some reality starting to sink in on both sides. Reality one: He is not a rock star and one wave of his hand removes any ills the country and world are facing.

I agree on this point. But those who thought he would do such a thing had completely unrealistic expectations. There are those of us who saw him as merely a smart guy who could do a better job of it than the other guy. He was not my first choice (still a Kucinich fan) but he's doing an okay job. Not great, but probably the best he can do given the mountain of problems we have.

[SteamWake]

So let me see if I have this right.

If you are defaulting on your home loan the federal goverment will allow you to 'pay rent' instead.

Pay rent to whom?

[AVGWarhawk]

So let me see if I have this right.

If you are defaulting on your home loan the federal goverment will allow you to 'pay rent' instead.

Pay rent to whom?


Government would assume the loan and become slum lords from the looks of it.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree on this point. But those who thought he would do such a thing had completely unrealistic expectations. There are those of us who saw him as merely a smart guy who could do a better job of it than the other guy. He was not my first choice (still a Kucinich fan) but he's doing an okay job. Not great, but probably the best he can do given the mountain of problems we have.

Sadly Mookie, the US is full of people who think he is a rock star and do not see the expectations as unrealistic. As far as a better job? I saw a guy who could talk a better sale then the other guy. :03:

[Tribesman]

However, those that did not screw up and kept up with the mortgage are seeing diminishing returns.
By diminishing returns do you mean their houses are not worth what they expected them to be worth due to the decline in house prices?

[SteamWake]

By diminishing returns do you mean their houses are not worth what they expected them to be worth due to the decline in house prices?

Exactly, Its kind of dissapointing, you go through your entire life learning that real estate is probably the most secure and almost assuredly a positive return on your investment.

So you take out a loan for 150,000.00 and make payments for many years. Halfway through the term the interest rate goes way up even though they property is now valued at 80,000.00 you still owe the full 150. Not to mention that even though your property apprasil is now less that what you payed for the property taxes continue to go upwards as does homeowners insurance.

[Tribesman]

Exactly, Its kind of dissapointing
So why not think about this issue .
If the banks/government bailed banks follow the policy of eviction what does the resulting flood of siezed properties onto the market do to your already devalued asset ?
Does it by any chance make it devalue further:yep:

you go through your entire life learning that real estate is probably the most secure and almost assuredly a positive return on your investment.

You need to relearn your lifes lessons.
Property is never really secure, if you want a fairly reasonable guarantee of a positive return then you don't buy on a mortgage and you don't buy when property is on the up.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I agree on this point. But those who thought he would do such a thing had completely unrealistic expectations. There are those of us who saw him as merely a smart guy who could do a better job of it than the other guy. He was not my first choice (still a Kucinich fan) but he's doing an okay job. Not great, but probably the best he can do given the mountain of problems we have.

Kucinich, huh? I'll admit that I have a degree of admiration for the man. He's the Democratic version of Ron Paul, imo.
Nonetheless, he is no Ron Paul. For a person who claims to be against the unfair promotion of big business and harmful government, he sure does a lot to help them. Frankly, I find a lot of his positions hopelessly naive.

That said, I would also prefer him to Obama. The congressman has demonstrated a respect for individual rights and non-interventionist policy that is clearly lacking in the current administration. Kucinich would not be my first pick for any kind of political position, but he would be my first pick amongst liberals.

[SteamWake]

So why not think about this issue .
If the banks/government bailed banks follow the policy of eviction what does the resulting flood of siezed properties onto the market do to your already devalued asset ?
Does it by any chance make it devalue further:yep:


You need to relearn your lifes lessons.
Property is never really secure, if you want a fairly reasonable guarantee of a positive return then you don't buy on a mortgage and you don't buy when property is on the up.

Property is never really secure? Maybe where your from but in the past it was the securist investment one could make. This cannot be argued.

Lets look at the whole picture and how we ended up in this debacle in the first place. The answer is simple, pepole were given loans whom could not afford them. When they defaulted on the loans the houses went back on the market starting the whole cycle again untill you get what we have now.

I bought my property on what appeard to be a 'down' I got a good deal all it needed was a little sweat equity. So far Ive lost neary 50,000.00 on the investment. Never before has the real estate industry been a 'bad' investment. I had never even heard of Obama or his policys.

I dont think anyone whom 'invested wisely' foresaw the out of control spending intervention and outright wrecklessness of the currrent administration.

Stimulus not working as planned? Im beginning to wonder if it may be working exactly as planned after all whom do the "victums" turn to first?

[mookiemookie]

Never before has the real estate industry been a 'bad' investment. Except for the times when it has. Late 70's early 80s, et. al. Contrary to what your Realtor or mortgage broker may have told you, real estate does not always go up.


I dont think anyone whom 'invested wisely' foresaw the out of control spending intervention and outright wrecklessness of the currrent administration.


Obama caused the financial crisis? You have a real short memory.

[SteamWake]

Obama caused the financial crisis? You have a real short memory.

Never said that in fact I pointed clearly at previous adminstrations its just that actions being taken now will reverse the trend in fact it makes it worse.

But Im beginning to believe that is exactly what is planned.

[AVGWarhawk]

By diminishing returns do you mean their houses are not worth what they expected them to be worth due to the decline in house prices?


In part, yes. Home sales keep the economy going are at the very least a large part of a strong economy. Diminishing returns meaning stimulus money for bailing out banks that inturn bail out those who are in foreclosure. My tax dollars. Me, being on time with my mortgage get to continue to pay my mortgage and now pay for someone elses. I get nothing in return. I do not want to hear about long term you will see captial gains in my house when sold nonsense. That is not assured at this time. The only thing assured right now is, a lot of people are getting away with living beyond their means and a lot who don't are paying for it. They get nothing in return. It is not an investment for me. It is purely taking my money and paying for others mistakes. It is a royal screwing. There is no other way to look at it. Now throw in healthcare and a possible second stimulus. Excellent. Does anyone need anything else I might have?

[Tribesman]

Property is never really secure? Maybe where your from but in the past it was the securist investment one could make. This cannot be argued.

When I said ...."You need to relearn your lifes lessons"....I was spot on.
You are so wide of the mark its unbelievable.



My tax dollars. Me, being on time with my mortgage get to continue to pay my mortgage and now pay for someone elses.
Which you do anyway and always have done

[Aramike]

I actually like this plan. Right now the banks are practically innundated with foreclosed properties. These houses often become blighted and are bringing down the property values of entire neighborhoods. Unlike what a lot of super-hardcore right-wingers would like everyone to believe, a lot of people who've fallen behind on their mortgage have done so due to the general downturn in the economy. I'm quite sure that there are plenty of people on this very board that have mortgages they would struggle with should they lose their jobs.

There are two types of "victims" here:

1 - The responsible borrower who has fallen prey to our domino-effect economy.

2 - The irresponsible borrower who originally borrowed way more than they could afford.

Now, considering that the government has been, in my opinion, instrumental in prolonging and worsening this recession, the 1st type of victim finds themselves in an artificially deep hole. By the government assisting this person in staying in their residence but NOT OWNING IT, that will help property values stabilize as well as provide the banks REAL "Troubled Asset Relief".

[SteamWake]

When I said ...."You need to relearn your lifes lessons"....I was spot on.
You are so wide of the mark its unbelievable.

I should have put all my money into Pets.com I guess.

Perhaps in the land of Ire owning land is a laughable pursuit.

In America real estate has been the the safest investment since before the great depression.

But I know your ways and rather than looking a fool Ill end the argument here.

[Tribesman]

Perhaps in the land of Ire owning land is a laughable pursuit.

It has become a laughable pursuit in the past few years with idiots thinking they were actually making real money on their homes and others falling for crazy property investment schemes.
Personally I don't intend to buy any more land or property until 2011 as it should have completely bottomed by then, though I was very tempted when a big old house in Waterside came up for auction last month.

In America real estate has been the the safest investment since before the great depression.

Real estate is always a gamble no matter what country it is in or what government you live with.

[AVGWarhawk]

When I said ...."You need to relearn your lifes lessons"....I was spot on.
You are so wide of the mark its unbelievable.




Which you do anyway and always have done


Please enlighten me to how I have been paying my neighbors mortgage:06:

[Tribesman]

Please enlighten me to how I have been paying my neighbors mortgage
Sorry that wasn't very clear.
You don't pay the actual mortgage , just as you wouldn't under the proposed scheme .
What you do pay for is the cost of rehousing them once they are homeless and since homeless also often means jobless you pay for their welfare upkeep too.
Right thats the tax side of things done.
Now onto your own mortgage. How much money does the bank take off you , how much of those direct and indirect fees related to your mortgage cover the banks arse for all the bad loans it makes?
Now onto the insurance . Do you have private insurance on your loan or have you taken the one that comes with the bank? Either way you are paying for other peoples defaulted loans.

[Sea Demon]

Sorry that wasn't very clear.
You don't pay the actual mortgage , just as you wouldn't under the proposed scheme .
What you do pay for is the cost of rehousing them once they are homeless and since homeless also often means jobless you pay for their welfare upkeep too.
Right thats the tax side of things done.
Now onto your own mortgage. How much money does the bank take off you , how much of those direct and indirect fees related to your mortgage cover the banks arse for all the bad loans it makes?
Now onto the insurance . Do you have private insurance on your loan or have you taken the one that comes with the bank? Either way you are paying for other peoples defaulted loans.

You make a good point here. Lenders protecting themselves from defaulted loans is what you are describing. But these lenders would be better off being more cautious in who they lend money to. And keeping rates and fees more competitive in the long run. Can someone please make this clear to Barney Frank and big government intrusion types?!?!

[Buddahaid]

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-5100.html

Institutions should recognize the additional risks inherent in subprime lending and determine if these risks are acceptable and controllable given the institution's staff, financial condition, size, and level of capital support. Institutions that engage in subprime lending in any significant way should have board-approved policies and procedures, as well as internal controls that identify, measure, monitor, and control these additional risks. Institutions that engage in a small volume of subprime lending should have systems in place commensurate with their level of risk. Institutions that began a subprime lending program prior to the issuance of this guidance should carefully consider whether their program meets the following guidelines and should implement corrective measures for any area that falls short of these minimum standards. If the risks associated with this activity are not properly controlled, the agencies consider subprime lending a high-risk activity that is unsafe and unsound.

Seems the banks and loan companies may have been greedy. :o

Buddahaid

[Sea Demon]

Seems the banks and loan companies may have been greedy. :o

Buddahaid


Definitely a part of the problem as well. Of course, they should have payed heed to the long term risks. It's my opinion that if the government never intervened in the housing sector in the first place, these lenders might have been more cautious with their capital.

[Buddahaid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis





Government policies

Main article: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_cris is)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_Share .png/180px-U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_Share .png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_ Share.png) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_ Share.png)
U.S. Subprime lending expanded dramatically 2004-2006


Both government failed regulation and deregulation contributed to the crisis. In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission) (SEC) and Alan Greenspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan) conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks.[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-101)[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-102)
Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and G.W.Bush. In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis) was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[104] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-103)[105] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-104)[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-105) Approximately 80% of subprime mortgages are adjustable-rate mortgages.[107] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-106)
In 1995, the GSE's like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-Leonnig-107) In 1996, HUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUD_%28housing%29) set a goal for Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-108) From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990's because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[110] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-109) The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion.[111] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-110) When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense.[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-publications1-111)[113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-112)
The Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) was enacted after the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). It separated commercial banks and investment banks, in part to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the lending activities of the former and rating activities of the latter. Economist Joseph Stiglitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz) criticized the repeal of the Act. He called its repeal the "culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial services industries...spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm)." He believes it contributed to this crisis because the risk-taking culture of investment banking dominated the more conservative commercial banking culture, leading to increased levels of risk-taking and leverage during the boom period.[114] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-113) The Federal government bailout of thrifts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrift) during the savings and loan crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis) of the late 1980s may have encouraged other lenders to make risky loans, and thus given rise to moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard).[115] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-114)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-brown1-35)
Conservatives have also debated the possible effects of the Community Reinvestment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) (CRA), with detractors claiming that the Act encouraged lending to uncreditworthy borrowers,[116] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-115)[117] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-116)[118] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-DiLorenzo-117)[119] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-118) and defenders claiming a thirty year history of lending without increased risk.[120] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-119)[121] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-120)[122] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-121)[123] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-Ellis-122) Detractors also claim that amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s, raised the amount of mortgages issued to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers, and allowed the securitization of CRA-regulated mortgages, even though a fair number of them were subprime.[124] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-123)[125] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-124)
Both Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Kroszner) and FDIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDIC) Chairman Sheila Bair have stated their belief that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.[126] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-125)


Some history on regulation changes.


Buddahaid
[/URL]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-125"]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-125)

[AVGWarhawk]

Sorry that wasn't very clear.
You don't pay the actual mortgage , just as you wouldn't under the proposed scheme .
What you do pay for is the cost of rehousing them once they are homeless and since homeless also often means jobless you pay for their welfare upkeep too.
Right thats the tax side of things done.
Now onto your own mortgage. How much money does the bank take off you , how much of those direct and indirect fees related to your mortgage cover the banks arse for all the bad loans it makes?
Now onto the insurance . Do you have private insurance on your loan or have you taken the one that comes with the bank? Either way you are paying for other peoples defaulted loans.


Here is the problem, the insurance required for the % due on the loan, fees, etc. No problem. Part of the deal. However, I'm still paying these and have bailed out the banks via the government via my tax money. In essence, I'm getting hit twice. See my picture? :03:

[mookiemookie]

Both Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Kroszner) and FDIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDIC) Chairman Sheila Bair have stated their belief that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.[126] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-125)


It wasn't. The data and hard numbers bear them out on this.

[Monica Lewinsky]

And the word was written upon a stone ---

Thou shall not worship FALSE idols and beware of false idols for they have no idea of sin and pain of ordinary people that have NEVER sinned AND get the short-end of the stick of a so called leader:

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/falseidol.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

no more private property...:shifty:

im with you dude.

but as long as fat Dems and portly Reps can get their cheeseburgers, starbucks, big screens and new cars they wont give a damn.

congrats America... you got the government you deserve.:stare:

Can't say it any better myself.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

And the word was written upon a stone ---

Thou shall not worship FALSE idols and beware of false idols for they have no idea of sin and pain of ordinary people that have NEVER sinned AND get the short-end of the stick of a so called leader:

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/falseidol.jpg

Crud,can you get a faster connection or post things like normal people?

-S

[Buddahaid]

Can't say it any better myself.

-S

Isn't that what a Republic is? It's not your will but your representative's. And, anyone who's ever dealt with eminent domain knows private property is a myth. Just ask the farmers from Oak Ridge. Wake up! If your government wants it, they will have it, democracy or not!

Buddahaid

[Tribesman]

Here is the problem, the insurance required for the % due on the loan, fees, etc. No problem. Part of the deal. However, I'm still paying these and have bailed out the banks via the government via my tax money. In essence, I'm getting hit twice. See my picture?
Yes , and if the government wasn't involved the banks would just adjust their fees to make up for the new losses so you would still be paying more for other peoples mistakes.

[Aramike]

Yes , and if the government wasn't involved the banks would just adjust their fees to make up for the new losses so you would still be paying more for other peoples mistakes.That's a valid point, but I disagree as it is based upon the assumption that banks would work as a unified entity when imposing the fees.

If the banks were not under such strict government regulations they would be forced to compete for the consumer's dollar like any other industry. Competition is key to lowering costs (that is the guiding principle behind anti-trust laws).

Government regulation is the force that allows fees to remain high as part of standardization.

[Tribesman]

That's a valid point, but I disagree as it is based upon the assumption that banks would work as a unified entity when imposing the fees.

They don't have to work as a unified entity to screw their customers.
If the banks were not under such strict government regulations they would be forced to compete for the consumer's dollar like any other industry. Competition is key to lowering costs (that is the guiding principle behind anti-trust laws).

Banks themselves stifle competition, if you have a deal with one bank and wish to transfer it to another because it offers a better deal then you have to pay penalties to the first for the transfer. If the the first bank later offers a better deal and you want that then you have to pay the second bank penalties again.
Besides which the current property crisis is mainly down to poor regulation of the financial institutions not the strict legislation you mention.

[Takeda Shingen]

I applaud your decision to take a stand. You are a true American.

I'm certain that Neal sleeps with ease now that he has your endorsement.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes , and if the government wasn't involved the banks would just adjust their fees to make up for the new losses so you would still be paying more for other peoples mistakes.


The bank can not adjust my fees on a contract already signed. It is a fixed mortgage. Fixed means fixed(not adjustable like those loans that have sunk many). Never had a fee go up ever. Only thing that can legally change is property taxes due. They have no control over that nor do I. See, the contract signed is for the entire amount due on the loan, plus fees, interest, closing cost, etc. It is all encompassing. There is a final figure I will pay after 30 years with exception of property taxes if said property taxes are handled by the mortgage lender which in most instances is the case. The mortgage company can not simply add fees for their screw ups. If they do so, simply refinance at a more reputable institution. You are never bound to the same company for the 30 years on a mortgage. If they suck, you find someone else. I have and so have others.

With your line of thinking a loan for a car could go up in fees over the life of the loan if your neighbor got his car repo'ed because of non-payment of his loan at the same bank as mine. It does not work that way. My car loan is fixed on everything. Contract signed. The bank can not say, oops, Joe down the street is not paying. Here is the new payment schedule for you as a result of Joe not paying on his car loan.

Sorry, I believe your thinking is correct.

As I stated, I have paid the mortgage insurances for others mistakes. I understand that and is part of the contractual agreement on the loan. All done, paid in full. Great. Now, my tax dollars just bailed out the banks for bad loans. Great. I just paid again. I do not know how to explain it to you any clearer than that.

[Monica Lewinsky]

Crud,can you get a faster connection or post things like normal people?

-S

Well, I looked at my server log. Got 50+ views with no complaints. Must be YOU being abnormal that comes as no surprise.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm certain that Neal sleeps with ease now that he has your endorsement.

Huh? What? Quieten down, Takeda, I'm sleeping over here...:shucks:

[Aramike]

They don't have to work as a unified entity to screw their customers.Really? Because it would seem that they do, unless they were competing with one-another and would be forced to provide better services (IE, less "screwing") than the next, which is what is REALLY happening.Banks themselves stifle competition, if you have a deal with one bank and wish to transfer it to another because it offers a better deal then you have to pay penalties to the first for the transfer. If the the first bank later offers a better deal and you want that then you have to pay the second bank penalties again.When I last had a mortgage I refinanced with a company that completely paid the penalties due to the original financier. Open competition not only allows this type of bargain; it encourages it.Besides which the current property crisis is mainly down to poor regulation of the financial institutions not the strict legislation you mention. Please cite facts backing this claim up. It sounds very Bawny Fwank to me...

[CastleBravo]

I'm certain that Neal sleeps with ease now that he has your endorsement.

If Neal needs me to be at ease, as much as he needs me to take a stand on Mr. Obama, then all is right with the universe. lol

Both seem to be the case in someone's mind.:hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

Please cite facts backing this claim up. It sounds very Bawny Fwank to me...

Deregulation in and of itself was not the root cause of the financial and economic crisis, but it paved the way for the incompetence and greed that did cause it.

You had a Fed that allowed banks to make loans that they knew would never be paid back, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that deregulated derivatives and allowed firms like AIG to gorge on them, and the failure to oversee credit ratings agencies that slapped AAA ratings on junk paper. It was non-feasance, or not doing the job they were supposed to do, that allowed for the whole mess to happen.

Getting back to the original point, it wasn't any onerous legislation that caused banks to make these loans. It was the fact that banks could make the loans and not have to take any of the credit risk of them, as they were selling them to Wall Street, whose voracious appetite for debt to be securitized and sold kept the whole train running. If a person could breathe, they qualified for a loan. What did you (as the bank) care whether it paid or didn't? All you cared about was that it stayed current long enough to turn around and sell it to the Street. It wasn't hard to make loans that stayed current for 30 days.

[Takeda Shingen]

If Neal needs me to be at ease, as much as he needs me to take a stand on Mr. Obama, then all is right with the universe. lol

Both seem to be the case in someone's mind.:hmmm:

Interesting. I had no idea that the heartlands extended to Colorado.

[Tribesman]

Sorry for the delay, the weather was good (or bad whichever way you look ) so I went out foriegn for catching waves
The bank can not adjust my fees on a contract already signed. It is a fixed mortgage. Fixed means fixed(not adjustable like those loans that have sunk many). Never had a fee go up ever. Only thing that can legally change is property taxes due. They have no control over that nor do I. See, the contract signed is for the entire amount due on the loan, plus fees, interest, closing cost, etc. It is all encompassing. There is a final figure I will pay after 30 years with exception of property taxes if said property taxes are handled by the mortgage lender which in most instances is the case. The mortgage company can not simply add fees for their screw ups. If they do so, simply refinance at a more reputable institution. You are never bound to the same company for the 30 years on a mortgage. If they suck, you find someone else. I have and so have others.

Now considering that you are talking 30 years then IMHO you are on the old Japanese scale where you should not really be buying but feel you have to ,, a 30 year loan is outrageous(OK lots of people nowdays find it normal , but a lot of people nowadays find themselves screwed) secondly you talk of the final payment , that sounds awfully like an endowment mortgage , I hope you have not been foolish enogh to take one of those as they are a bloody big gamble as all you are doing is paying off the fixed interest while retaining the whole of the debt plus fees.
In all honesty the only way to go is a very short term repayment mortgage where you have at least 40% of the price in cash or servicable assets ,and even then all property is an expensive gamble

[FIREWALL]

Lets bring back Debtors Prisons.

Hey !!! And while were at it why not Child Sweatshops too.

[Stealth Hunter]

Lets bring back Debtors Prisons.

Hey !!! And while were at it why not Child Sweatshops too.

Can we also destroy all existing child labor laws, creating a scenario similar to the situation we were in 110 years ago when William McKinley was president and when you could legally buy children to work for little or no pay in your factory?:hmmm: