• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration to order lenders to cut mortgage payments for jobless

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Link
washingtonpost.com

Does the President of the USA have the power and the right to legally make this happen.
I ask because I have no idea as to the extent of his powers.
 
Link
washingtonpost.com

Does the President of the USA have the power and the right to legally make this happen.
I ask because I have no idea as to the extent of his powers.

Perhaps reading the article would have been in order then

For the first time, the government will offer financial incentives to lenders that cut the principal these homeowners owe on primary mortgages.

The new initiatives are expected to take effect over the next half year and will be funded out of money remaining in the $700 billion bailout program for the financial sector, administration officials said. They said no new taxpayer funds would be needed.

snip

The announcement comes as the administration faces increasing pressure from lawmakers and housing advocates to overhaul its foreclosure prevention efforts. So far, fewer than 200,000 borrowers have received permanent loan modifications under its $75 billion marquee program, known as Making Home Affordable. And the Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program has raised concerns that many borrowers may redefault even after receiving relief under the program.

In the meantime, there is a growing backlog of distressed borrowers awaiting help from their lender and threatening to hamper efforts to stabilize the housing market. The "program will not be a long-term success if large amounts of borrowers simply redefault and end up facing foreclosure anyway," the inspector general said in a report released earlier this week.

cont

So by orders the Washington Times means bribe.

It is only offering incentives (ie money) to the financial institutions that the Admin is going try and increase the amount of modifications. There is no force going on, just good old greed
 
Link
washingtonpost.com

Does the President of the USA have the power and the right to legally make this happen.
I ask because I have no idea as to the extent of his powers.

In the new ****ed up, piece-a-**** communist America that ignores the law, he does.
 
I am sorry but if one single taxpayer dollars goes to out the tons of people that bought houses that were way above there income level than this is very wrong. We should not be rewarding bad behavior by letting people keep the houses that they should have never got in the first place. They should have to sell the house and get something they can afford. Fact of life is that not every one in the US can own thier own home. If you want to own a house or a bigger house than you should get a better job not have the Gov. bribe banks to give you lower payments. This everyone should own a home thinking is a big part of the reason that we are in the mess we are in.
 
Link
washingtonpost.com

Does the President of the USA have the power and the right to legally make this happen.
I ask because I have no idea as to the extent of his powers.
Of course he does, it's right there in the Constitution.

G - I order- E - you to - N - cut - E - mortgage - R - payments - A - for - L W - the - E - poor - L - and - F - those - A - without - R - jobs - E.
 
I believe you are supposed to use the title of the article for the thread title when posting in the Breaking News forum. In this case, it would be:

"Obama readies steps to fight foreclosures, particularly for unemployed"

rather than the transparently partisan one you used.
 
I believe you are supposed to use the title of the article for the thread title when posting in the Breaking News forum. In this case, it would be:

"Obama readies steps to fight foreclosures, particularly for unemployed"

rather than the transparently partisan one you used.
He did.

The washpo changed the title since last night... no doubt compelled by a bunch of whiners complaining about it being transparently partisan.
:2wave:
 
I am sorry but if one single taxpayer dollars goes to out the tons of people that bought houses that were way above there income level than this is very wrong. We should not be rewarding bad behavior by letting people keep the houses that they should have never got in the first place. They should have to sell the house and get something they can afford. Fact of life is that not every one in the US can own thier own home. If you want to own a house or a bigger house than you should get a better job not have the Gov. bribe banks to give you lower payments. This everyone should own a home thinking is a big part of the reason that we are in the mess we are in.

If you would have read even the actual title for the article, you would know:
  1. That the assistance would be for the unemployed. Therefore:
  2. That the people being talked about probably can afford the house they are in once the economy generates enough jobs for everyone. And:
  3. That they probably can't buy another house right now, or even rent an apartment. Some of these people might end up homeless. How's about they live on the corner at the end of your street, eh?
If you would have read a few articles about Republican philosophy in the last, oh 7 years, you would have heard the slogan "ownership society" where they were encouraging, among other things, home ownership.

Home ownership for the many is hugely beneficial to society. The way it was to have gone about may have contributed a miniscule amount to the financial crisis, unfortunately. But, it isn't "the reason" that we're in the mess we are in today.
 
I am sorry but if one single taxpayer dollars goes to out the tons of people that bought houses that were way above there income level than this is very wrong. We should not be rewarding bad behavior by letting people keep the houses that they should have never got in the first place. They should have to sell the house and get something they can afford. Fact of life is that not every one in the US can own thier own home. If you want to own a house or a bigger house than you should get a better job not have the Gov. bribe banks to give you lower payments. This everyone should own a home thinking is a big part of the reason that we are in the mess we are in.

How about the people that lost their job and consequently their homes? Is it their fault that their town is decimated by GE (or any other manufacturer) sending jobs overseas?
 
I don't believe you.
It's a free country. You can choose to be ignorant if you desire. I know I'm right and just thought I'd share the wealth.
It sounds like BS, since the article doesn't even remotely fit the supposed former title.
Except for the first line, which is almost word for word the same (the big difference being "required" instead of "ordered.":doh
 
Wait until the looming COMMERCIAL crater hits as the interest only 5 year notes come due, the home owner bailout will seem like chump change.....;)
Here in Emerald City, the largest building (Columbia Center) owners' (Boston based Beacon Capital Partners) failed to make a 1.65M payment on a $380M loan they took out in 2007......
They borrowed a total of $480M to purchase the building for $621M, but not the building is valued at $380M, leaving them $100 million 'under water'....
When purchased in 2007, it had an 89% occpancy rate, now it is at 60%....:shock:
My guess is there are probably a lot more buildings in similar circumstances....:(
Where's that money going to come from?....:confused:
 
unfortunately, it's far worse than the OP even

all three housing indicators are at historic bads

home SALES are at a RECORD LOW, four straight months

home VALUES are thru the floor

and most ominous, home FORECLOSURES have topped 300,000 a month for 11 straight months---WITH NO END IN SIGHT

ap says 4.5 million NEW foreclosures will file in 2010

bear in mind that fed efforts to keep down home interest rates expire THIS WEEK

and the tax credit for first time buyers ends APRIL 30

worse, ap reports PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF PROGRAM, HAMP, HAS BEEN A DUD

1.1 million people applied for assistance but only 170,000 were able to FILL OUT THE FORMS

(a lot like clunkers)

and MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS RE-DEFAULTED ON THOSE WITHIN 9 MONTHS

it's almost SIXTY PERCENT if you go back a full year

summary:

1. the housing market is WORSE, a lot WORSE, now than when pieface moved into pennsylvania ave

2. the housing crash is what PRECIPITATED all this pain

3. FORECLOSURES ARE STILL RISING

4. SALES are projected to a dismal 300,000 FOR A YEAR

5. the pieface's HAMP is a DUD

6. cuz everyone he keeps bailing out just keeps going bust

everyone with a deadbeat brother warned him but obtuse obama just can't HEAR (despite the largeness of those lobes)

a lot of the people we're talking about are currently residing in homes a lot bigger, shinier and NEWER than yours, by the way

but we're all paying for em

so the president decides to just do more of the same

and those who physically can't make good on their debts will just walk away

the federal deficit takes all the more balloon-like EXPANSION

til everything just goes POP!

OBAMA'S BIG BANG!

Foreclosures exceed 300,000 for 11th straight month | The Money Times

Housing market's recovery appears at risk - Boston.com

Sales of New U.S. Homes Dropped in February to Lowest on Record - Bloomberg.com

Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
 
Last edited:
why don't liberals like links?

LOL!
 
In some cities, as many as 80% of mortgage holders are currently upside down in their mortgages. As a result, many homeowners are choosing to walk away from their mortgages and accept foreclosure. Anything that keeps people who want to stay in their homes in their homes is a positive alternative to masses of people walking away from their debt. We can absorb the former, we cannot absorb the latter, and it is a real possibility.
 
we've been absorbing for a year and the problem is GROWING

is he gonna blame all THAT on the weather?

LOL!

his HAMP was a DUD!

more than half those he helped were, most unhappily, unhelpable

it's horrific

he's making it worse
 
he's making it worse

It's arguable that this is possible.

Dicristo is in growing company. About 24% of all residential properties with mortgages had negative equity at the end of 2009, according to First American CoreLogic. That's up from 10.7 million and 23% at the end of September.

Dicristo can't sell her home and move, but she may be forced to leave. She no longer can afford the payments on her home and expects to be foreclosed upon.

She's living on Social Security and unemployment and drawing $800 a month from her $200,000 retirement account, but she says she has no choice but to walk away from her current home.

Her credit score had been close to a sterling 800, reflecting the type of borrower many banks would lend to at low interest rates. Because she's been unable to make her mortgage payments, she believes her credit score has sunk to about 500, a score that would make it difficult for her to get a home loan.

Dicristo's state, California, is among the top five states where negative equity is most concentrated. But it's not in the lead. Nevada had the highest percentage of negative equity with 70% of its mortgaged properties underwater, followed by Arizona at 51%, Florida with 48%, Michigan with 39%. California came in at 35%, according to First American CoreLogic.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-03-24-1Aunderwater25_CV_N.htm

Not only does this issue threaten large banks, but it also threatens the longterm stability of millions of families. Most of us grew up believing that our homes were a sort of savings account for the future. You have millions of seniors out there who were hoping that the money they put into their home would help them pay for retirement. And that may not happen.

Anything the Obama administration can do to encourage actions like the one taken by Bank of America this week would probably be helpful.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-03-24-bank-of-america-mortgage-cuts_N.htm

"It's a great idea. It's quite encouraging," says Mark Zandi, with Moody's Economy.com. "It's a very strong incentive for borrowers to remain current. If this can be broadened to more (mortgage) servicers, it could make a significant difference. This is the first real principal write-down plan that has a shot at making a difference. It's very creative."

By all means, we want to encourage homeowners to continue IN THEIR HOMES. Our economy cannot handle another glut of foreclosures because homeowners are in underwater mortgages...and a lot are.
 
Last edited:
By all means, we want to encourage homeowners to continue IN THEIR HOMES. Our economy cannot handle another glut of foreclosures because homeowners are in underwater mortgages...and a lot are.

It's arguments like that which force us to live with unsustainable development that we have today instead of more cost-effective denser living.
 
we've been absorbing for a year and the problem is GROWING

is he gonna blame all THAT on the weather?

LOL!

his HAMP was a DUD!

more than half those he helped were, most unhappily, unhelpable

it's horrific

he's making it worse

As I mentioned in another thread, we've made the decision at my company to reduce staff by 15 percent on top of the 25 percent reductions of last summer.

The fed's agressive policy changes, we anticipate, is going to ratchet our operational costs upward quickly, and the economy won't sustain our current sales levels in 2011. And we're a very healthy company, relatively speaking.

It is going to get ug-ly.

Obama is screwing this up so badly; is he doing this on purpose? I think he wants this capitalistic pig of a country destroyed beyond recognition.
 
It's arguments like that which force us to live with unsustainable development that we have today instead of more cost-effective denser living.

Oh, yummy. I always wanted to live in a 1,000-apartment tower in Tokyo.
 
i'm not sure about the legality, but it's a good idea.
 
It's arguments like that which force us to live with unsustainable development that we have today instead of more cost-effective denser living.

So? Our current financial crisis would be worsened if millions of people walked away from their debt. If you want to talk about unsustainable development, start your own thread.
 
As I mentioned in another thread, we've made the decision at my company to reduce staff by 15 percent on top of the 25 percent reductions of last summer.

So, you're suggesting that trying to get people to pay their mortgages, instead of walk away from them, will be bad for America, and put realtors out of business?

Wow.
 
If you would have read even the actual title for the article, you would know:
  1. That the assistance would be for the unemployed. Therefore:
  2. That the people being talked about probably can afford the house they are in once the economy generates enough jobs for everyone. And:
  3. That they probably can't buy another house right now, or even rent an apartment. Some of these people might end up homeless. How's about they live on the corner at the end of your street, eh?
If you would have read a few articles about Republican philosophy in the last, oh 7 years, you would have heard the slogan "ownership society" where they were encouraging, among other things, home ownership.

Home ownership for the many is hugely beneficial to society. The way it was to have gone about may have contributed a miniscule amount to the financial crisis, unfortunately. But, it isn't "the reason" that we're in the mess we are in today.
Oh I see, so whenever things get bad, the Government should be there to save us, because after all, it's just not right when **** happens...

"Hey can't pay your bills? Uncle Obama has plenty from his stash.
 
Oh I see, so whenever things get bad, the Government should be there to save us, because after all, it's just not right when **** happens...

"Hey can't pay your bills? Uncle Obama has plenty from his stash.

Apparently, you didn't bother to read the article. Shockers.
 
Back
Top Bottom