• 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

Post 55 was the important one.

That's just one I saw, there is another which has been reduced and it's been on the market for about a year.

I have to wait though, I don't want to but I'm in a rental lease till December and breaking it early would add on costs.
Not to mention the rest of the down payment. :(
 
It's arguable that this is possible.


Underwater mortgages drain equity, dampen retirement - USATODAY.com

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.

Bank of America will cut mortgage loan amount for underwater homes - USATODAY.com



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.

Vicky Dicristo, 64, bought her home in Soquel, Calif., in 2006 for $535,000 with plans to fix it up, live in it awhile, then sell and buy a nice retirement home in Arizona, where she has family. She bought the home with a five-year, interest-only, adjustable-rate mortgage at a 5.9% interest rate.

Her home is now worth $350,000, according to the local assessor's office. And Dicristo, who was laid off nearly two years ago from her job as a mortgage loan underwriter, has lost the $135,000 she put down on the house as well as the more than $15,000 she put into renovating the home with new floors.

"I lost $150,000," Dicristo says. "I haven't been able to make payments, either. I thought I was going to be able to sell it and move to a less expensive area. That had been my plan when I bought it, to move to someplace like Arizona and pay all cash. But that whole plan fell apart."

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.
the full story on Dicristo

While I feel for her to a degree, this is entirely a bed she made for herself. She made an investement that went south on her. Other then the bank that made the loan no one else should be made to pay such an idiotic move.

And yes the bank that made the loan should pay as well, it should not have made such a moronic lending decision
 
strategic default: a person is BEHIND on his or her mortgage, but not quite behind enough to qualify for a "modification..."

close, 60 days late, but not quite late enough...

hmm...

exactly what should he or she do?

LOL!

you see? that's why this kinda feelgood crap never works

it's just not sufficiently REAL

subprime doesn't work, it's been demonstrated

more of the same will lead to more of the same

NO MORE!

pursue this proven wrong path at your peril, president pieface

it's why the housing market has gotten SO MUCH WORSE since you took over
 
ap reported this week: 2.8 million foreclosures in miserable 09, 4.5 million expected in significantly worse 2010

msnbc this morning: TEN TO TWELVE MILLION FORECLOSURES FORECAST IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS!

thanks, president obama, for making the HOUSING MARKET so much WORSE

can i ask you a question, sir: why, when unemployment is thru the roof and home sales are in the basement, did you, mr president, GO TO IOWA to continue to SELL health care AFTER it had already passed?
 
I am very glad I live in the Midwest where not only are house prices affordable, but they seem to be holding their value fairly well. I have a 2200 sq ft home and my mortgage payment is under 800 bucks/mo. So while I may struggle to make the payment if I lost my job, I could continue to make my payment even if I had to take a job that paid a lot less than what I had earned before.

I am fortunate not to be in that situation.

The sister of a friend of mine, lives out in Cali and her husband and her tried to get the bank to work with them when he was laid off.. they wouldn't and they let the house go back to the bank and they moved back here where they are renting a nice size home. After struggling to try to make the payment (the house was really expensive and was but a mere shoebox) and then trying to sell the house, they couldn't get anywhere close to what they even owed on the house.. nevermind trying to make any kind of small profit. So.. .foreclosure it was.

I don't see the upturn in the housing market OR the job market. How long exactly, is this "change" supposed to take?

Personally, I don't think we've hit rock bottom yet.
 
I am very glad I live in the Midwest where not only are house prices affordable, but they seem to be holding their value fairly well. I have a 2200 sq ft home and my mortgage payment is under 800 bucks/mo. So while I may struggle to make the payment if I lost my job, I could continue to make my payment even if I had to take a job that paid a lot less than what I had earned before.

I am fortunate not to be in that situation.

The sister of a friend of mine, lives out in Cali and her husband and her tried to get the bank to work with them when he was laid off.. they wouldn't and they let the house go back to the bank and they moved back here where they are renting a nice size home. After struggling to try to make the payment (the house was really expensive and was but a mere shoebox) and then trying to sell the house, they couldn't get anywhere close to what they even owed on the house.. nevermind trying to make any kind of small profit. So.. .foreclosure it was.

I don't see the upturn in the housing market OR the job market. How long exactly, is this "change" supposed to take?

Personally, I don't think we've hit rock bottom yet.

No we have not

The residential housing market has another leg downward to go. From ARM hitting the adjustment time very soon.

Then we have those that are unemployed who are going to lose thier homes.

Then with a large increase in the number of foreclosed properties, property values will take another hit. Leading to more people doing a strategic default

As for the job market

It will not get better for a few years at best. The US is going to see government layoffs in greater numbers (local and state). Leading to a reduction in consumer spending, and because of that a further reduction in private sector employement
 
the truth is so simply stated

don't forget to factor in the impact this shiny new mandate upon millions of young people suddenly to go out and buy for themselves and their families medical insurance which, in many instances, can cost more than the house payment itself...

it looks like leadership lost sight of these looming, ugly realities

housing, employment, consumer spending, mandates on individuals to buy blue cross---all these things are CONNECTED
 
Did you purchase your home with the intention to live there or for it to go up in value? If your answer both.... and you wait... i am 99.9% positive it will eventually be worth more than $269k.

I bought this house with the intention of dying here someday, whenever that might be. It was not purchased with any notion of making money on it, since I never intend to sell it. And yes, it probably will some day be worth more, but again, that's not why I bought the place, nor was it the reason I told my story (although it does annoy me no end that it's been assessed so low).

I was attempting to show braindead how silly and simplistic his/her "solutions" to the problem are ("sell your house, get a job, don't behave badly"), and that homeowners are NOT the cause of the nationwide drop in home values. The unscrupulous bankers and brokers who gamed the market (and those in government who allowed/encouraged their gambling with homeowners' assets) bear the lion's share of the blame for dropping home values.

If your answer was to speculate on its value….

Nope.
 
the rest of us who have seen our homes value drop is not due to the owners doing. We're at the mercy of the market and the forces that drive it.

Um. Yeah.

See where I said the same thing to Catz in post 31?

And through no fault of their own, but rather as a direct result of the greedy and unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders who set the foreclosure extravaganza in motion by trading hyper-inflated junk.

I then responded to braindrain, who said:

We should not be rewarding bad behavior by letting people keep the houses that they should have never got in the first place.

… by giving her a simple example of how the market and economy affect the value of a home regardless of a homeowner's actions. As for "bad behavior," that belongs to the unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders who set the foreclosure extravaganza in motion by trading hyper-inflated junk.



If you totally alleviate the negligence of the home buyers, this crap will happen all over again.

I'm not advocating "totally alleviating the negligence of the home buyers." Where did you get that idea?

Your supposed to make sure you have enough money to continue your payments even if you loose your job. It's called financial planning.

Who said I don't "have enough money to continue my payments?" Where is this coming from?

So the government is supposed to insure your investment?

No. I didn't say that either. This odd penchant you have for reading things that simply aren't there is quite annoying.


With free will, they won't get their hands on much capital unless the government steals it for them, which is what Glinda wants.

WTF? Do you people know how to read? Do you know the meanings of all the words or do you just make it up as you go along?

Where in the hell did I say the government should pay my mortgage for me? Direct quote, please. Thanks.


I would guess that the house was likely in not such attractive state when you bought it or you wouldn;t have had to do all that.

Actually, the house was in great condition. Just six years old and nicely maintained, but it was just a fairly basic structure without many bells and whistles. I upgraded everything inside and out, but the house was in fine shape to start with (although the road and the yard were not).

Assessed value is not the same as fair market value. Hopefully your assessed value is well under FMV so you won't pay as much in taxes. Do you want the assessed value to be higher?? :confused:

Good grief, people! Follow the conversation!

I told the story of how my home value dropped to show braindead that his/her "solutions" ("get a better job, sell your house, don't behave badly") were not only silly, but ignorant; that the market (and how lack of government regulation on the industry allowed it to be manipulated by unscrupulous mortgage brokers) caused my home value to drop, NOT anything I did wrong or foolishly or without proper caution and consideration.

Sheesh! :doh
 
One thing I've seen happen in my area is that people are trapped. There have been cuts in local companies (job losses), and people can't find a new job and can't sell their house for what they presently owe. So they are stuck.

YES.

Again, my reason for telling my own story was to show how millions of homeowners are upside-down and/or in foreclosure, NOT because of "bad behavior" but because of egregious market manipulations coupled with a failing economy. Not all homeowners got sub-prime loans they knew they couldn't afford. Not all homeowners got caught holding investment properties they suddenly couldn't flip. A lot of good, hardworking people are caught in this mess, through no fault of their own.

The thing is...a lot of lenders haven't really tried very hard to work with people so they could stay in their homes. Particularly people with ARMs and balloons are in a world of hurt. The more lenders can be encouraged to help keep people in their homes, rather than foreclosing, the less the market deflates.

This is true - lenders haven't tried to help homeowners. In fact, banks are dragging their feet as slowly as they can. That's why I support the administration's actions on this matter.

Taxpayers lent millions to failing banks, because to let them crash would be disastrous to our economy. It's time for those banks and lenders to return the favor, by working to keep people in their homes, because the alternative would be just as disastrous.
 
1. foreclosures are expected to be SIXTY PERCENT HIGHER in tearful 2010 than they were even in awful 09

2. foreclosures in awful 09 were SO BAD they led us all HERE, to the bottom of some obamite abyss

3. and yet foreclosures THIS YEAR are gonna be SIXTY PERCENT HIGHER than last (2.8 million foreclosures in 09, 4.5 million expected in '10, source ap, link on this thread)

4. meanwhile, by all accounts (ap, bloomberg, dem congresswoman from CA jackie speier, tarp inspector general neil barofsky), the president's HAMP (home affordable modification program) is "not just a failure, it's a dismal failure," says ms speier (source: bloomberg above)

5. it appears 1.1 million people applied for home affordable modifications, but only 170,000 were able to complete the applications (reminds me a lot of clunkers)

6. and, most ominously, SIXTY PERCENT OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED ASSISTANCE HAVE ALREADY RE-DEFAULTED IN JUST THE LAST 12 MONTHS (source: bloomberg, and it's actually 58.something)

7. so: foreclosures are murderous and worsening, the president's relief program is what ap called A DUD, half those we've already extended billions on have already done with OUR MONEY what they did with theirs, which is somehow like some nothing-up-his-sleeve houdini make REAL stuff just disappear

8. the president's proposal is more of the same

(that's when he's not in iowa trying to sell that which he already crammed)
 
Last edited:
1. foreclosures are expected to be SIXTY PERCENT HIGHER in tearful 2010 than they were even in awful 09

2. foreclosures in awful 09 were SO BAD they led us all HERE, to the bottom of some obamite abyss

3. and yet foreclosures THIS YEAR are gonna be SIXTY PERCENT HIGHER than last (2.8 million foreclosures in 09, 4.5 million expected in '10, source ap, link on this thread)

4. meanwhile, by all accounts (ap, bloomberg, dem congresswoman from CA jackie speier, tarp inspector general neil barofsky), the president's HAMP (home affordable modification program) is "not just a failure, it's a dismal failure," says ms speier (source: bloomberg above)

5. it appears 1.1 million people applied for home affordable modifications, but only 170,000 were able to complete the applications (reminds me a lot of clunkers)

6. and, most ominously, SIXTY PERCENT OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED ASSISTANCE HAVE ALREADY RE-DEFAULTED IN JUST THE LAST 12 MONTHS (source: bloomberg, and it's actually 58.something)

7. so: foreclosures are murderous and worsening, the president's relief program is what ap called A DUD, half those we've already extended billions on have already done with OUR MONEY what they did with theirs, which is somehow like some nothing-up-his-sleeve houdini make REAL stuff just disappear

8. the president's proposal is more of the same

(that's when he's not in iowa trying to sell that which he already crammed)

Obama caused these foreclosures?

This economic mess is far beyond anything Obama, has done or could have done. Everything he has done so far has made the situation less severe in the short term (longer term is another story.

Had the bailouts not occured or the massive stimulus package not been passed the economy currently would be in a far worse state then it is. It would recover sooner, but from a far lower level then it will be
 
And through no fault of their own, but rather as a direct result of the greedy and unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders who set the foreclosure extravaganza in motion by trading hyper-inflated junk.



Let me tell you a story...

In 2004, I purchased my home for $194,000. Over the course of the last six years, I've invested a lot of sweat and at least $50,000 toward improvements - completely rebuilt the gutted 1/5-mile gravel road, planted an enormous lawn, fruit trees, arbor vitae, 30+ rose bushes and hundreds of bulbs and assorted other plants, built an 8 x 12' greenhouse, three raised vegetable beds, an 8 x 12' Tuffshed, added a large deck on the front of the house and a roof and enclosure for the back deck, put in new carpet, new interior paint, new water heater, new kitchen sink/fixtures and Insinkerator, ran electrical lines to the outbuildings, new septic pump, completely rewired the garage, and on and on and on.

Two years ago, my home was assessed at $269,000 (before the roof/room was added to the back deck).

Today, the state assessor values my place at $187,000. Imagine its current "value" had I never invested a dime.

Now explain to me how I can possibly be faulted for the loss of value to my home. Please.

I'm all ears.

I never said it was your fault but it is your problem. And not matter whose fault it is it is not my problem and since it is not my problem why should my taxdollars go to fix your problem. Some people might even say that it is your fault for buying a house that was way over price. If I go and pay 50000 for a 90 ford escort and than cant pay my bill that is my problem and would expect no one to help me out.

Pray tell, who do you suppose is going to buy it? All the unemployed people out there whose homes are being foreclosed upon?

Here again how is this my problem

And when millions of jobs disappear because the economy is in a pit... Then what?



I think it's clear you have no real understanding of how we've come to the point we have.

And how many of these now unemployed people bought houses that they shoudnt have in the first place. There was a big story where I live about a man who owned a hot dog stand or something like that and made around 40000 a year. He took out a loan on a 1/2 million dollar house and suprise suprise he was not able to make his payments as the economy started to turn south. Why should the GOV help this idiot keep his house. While this may be a extreme example there are plenty of people that fall into this catagory. And for people that cant make there payments a month or 2 after losing thier jobs whose fault is it that they dont have an emergency fund. People need to live within thier means and quit buying everything on credit. Fixing the economy in the short term without fixing the fundamental problems with the way people manage thier money will only lead to having the same problems down the road.
 
Last edited:
And how many of these now unemployed people bought houses that they shoudnt have in the first place. There was a big story where I live about a man who owned a hot dog stand or something like that and made around 40000 a year. He took out a loan on a 1/2 million dollar house and suprise suprise he was not able to make his payments as the economy started to turn south. Why should the GOV help this idiot keep his house. While this may be a extreme example there are plenty of people that fall into this catagory. And for people that cant make there payments a month or 2 after losing thier jobs whose fault is it that they dont have an emergency fund. People need to live within thier means and quit buying everything on credit. Fixing the economy in the short term without fixing the fundamental problems with the way people manage thier money will only lead to having the same problems down the road.

Why did the banks make such idiotic loans in the first place? None were forced to make such stupidl lending decisions such as that one
 
Why did the banks make such idiotic loans in the first place? None were forced to make such stupidl lending decisions such as that one

Oh I agree. That is part of the reason I was aginst bailing out the banks. They should have to pay for thier bad decisions all on thier own. But the banks giving loans they should not have does not take away any of the responsibility of the home owner. They signed the contrat no one made them and they in some cases lied about thier financial situation. And the home owner, just like the bank shoud now have to live with those decesions.
 
Um. Yeah.

See where I said the same thing to Catz in post 31?



I then responded to braindrain, who said:



… by giving her a simple example of how the market and economy affect the value of a home regardless of a homeowner's actions. As for "bad behavior," that belongs to the unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders who set the foreclosure extravaganza in motion by trading hyper-inflated junk.

The value of the house changing does not effect the homeowners inability to make thier payments. I agree that paying 500000 for a house that is worth 25000 sucks but that is life. Maybe they shouldnt have bought that house.

I'm not advocating "totally alleviating the negligence of the home buyers." Where did you get that idea?



Who said I don't "have enough money to continue my payments?" Where is this coming from?



No. I didn't say that either. This odd penchant you have for reading things that simply aren't there is quite annoying.




WTF? Do you people know how to read? Do you know the meanings of all the words or do you just make it up as you go along?

Where in the hell did I say the government should pay my mortgage for me? Direct quote, please. Thanks.

Well the GOV is going to help people by getting banks to lower or eliminate some payments and you said you agreed with this policy so that is probably where people are getting this idea.


Actually, the house was in great condition. Just six years old and nicely maintained, but it was just a fairly basic structure without many bells and whistles. I upgraded everything inside and out, but the house was in fine shape to start with (although the road and the yard were not).



Good grief, people! Follow the conversation!

I told the story of how my home value dropped to show braindead that his/her "solutions" ("get a better job, sell your house, don't behave badly") were not only silly, but ignorant; that the market (and how lack of government regulation on the industry allowed it to be manipulated by unscrupulous mortgage brokers) caused my home value to drop, NOT anything I did wrong or foolishly or without proper caution and consideration.

Did your home value droping make your mortgage payments go up? If not than I dont see how that changes anything.
Sheesh! :doh

I never said that is a solution to the mess we are in. It is what should have been done before we got into this mess. And now that we are in this mess we have to all live with the choices we made. If that means you lose your house and lots of money well that is life. Sucks but that is the way it is in a free society. And once again what does home value have to do with the GOV helping people make payments to thier house which is what the thread is about. People signed the contract that sayed they were going to make x amount of payments of x amount of dollars. And now they want to make other people help them pay for thier house. Well that is not the way it is supposed to work.
 
Last edited:
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 did use the actual Title of this news article.

Had I not done so I think you may rest assured that a mod would have, by now sent me an admonishing email.
 
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.

IMO one of the reasons for the mess we are in is that Fanny & Freddie were given free rein to loan money to anyone without Fanny & Freddy determining whether they were able to afford these mortgages after the initial teaser period was over.

Now all you need do is decide who loosed the purse strings of Fanny & Freddy.
 
I'm not advocating "totally alleviating the negligence of the home buyers." Where did you get that idea?

They bought to much house than they really could afford, that is the moral of the story.


Who said I don't "have enough money to continue my payments?" Where is this coming from?

It was a general reference, if someone buys a house they can't afford to keep paying on when they loose their job, they couldn't afford it at all.

What you can afford should be a factor of when things are there best and worst.
If you loose your job will your unemployment benefits and savings cover the payments?
If the answer is no, you can't afford that house.


No. I didn't say that either. This odd penchant you have for reading things that simply aren't there is quite annoying.

That's what the problem is though, people think the government should save them from a stupid investment decision.
That was a choice they made, if they didn't study the risks of what they were doing, they need to learn the lesson the hard way.
 
Last edited:
Now explain to me how I can possibly be faulted for the loss of value to my home. Please.

I'm all ears.

Explain to me why my tax dollars have to be used to cover your bad investment. I'm all ears.
 
Obama caused these foreclosures?

mom don't know and mom don't care

he was elected to fix it

This economic mess is far beyond anything Obama, has done or could have done.

maybe, maybe not

but he'll take the blame either way, fair or not

he's president, that's just the way it works

if he can't handle it, he shouldn't have run

Everything he has done so far has made the situation less severe in the short term

Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Obama's HAMP program 'failed miserably' at preventing foreclosures | OregonLive.com
 
Last edited:
Explain to me why my tax dollars have to be used to cover your bad investment. I'm all ears.

The same reason MY tax dollars have to go for wars that YOU want. Not everything the government spends money on is what YOU or I want it to be spent on. DEAL with it or vote against YOUR representatives if you don't like it.
 
mom don't know and mom don't care

he was elected to fix it



maybe, maybe not

but he'll take the blame either way, fair or not

he's president, that's just the way it works

if he can't handle it, he shouldn't have run



Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Obama's HAMP program 'failed miserably' at preventing foreclosures | OregonLive.com

That Obama will take the blame I have no doubt. That is the way politics rolls.

Obama knows this, which is why you have the massive stimulus, the bailouts. If somehow the economy is improved by the 2012 election then he will be reelected. If it sinks somemore he wont. All that almost any politician cares about is that the negative effects of their policies dont come home to roost untill the next person is in their spot
 
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.

From The Invisible Hand, to The Invisible Brain.

.
 
They bought to much house than they really could afford, that is the moral of the story.

You could say that banks issued more loans than they could cover. Or real estate agencies took on more case loads than they could move. Since everybody is engaged in market activity, it is the businesses and not the consumers that must be held responsible, because the businesses have more knowledge of the economics and legalities of their market. When an adult and a child are participating in a dubious activity, we hold the adult and not the child more responsible because they are the ones who have more knowledge of appropriate behavior.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom