FDIC Loan Modification Program *Screw the borrower*

[eyePod]

[quote]
If just $2 trillion of the $7 trillion the government has so far committed for the financial sector were to be channeled directly to the unemployed, each worker would receive $200,000
[/quote]

Can you show your math? I get $20K, not $200K

[no_such_reality]

For all the talk of “saving homeowners”…..

What homeowmers?

I don’t see no homeowners asking for a bail out, I see people that aren’t paying their bills on something they never could afford whining they want to kept what isn’t rightfully theirs anymore.

If they want it, they can pay their bills. If they don’t want to pay the bill, get the f— out. Then someone that can pay the bill and is willing to pay the bill, will pay the bill at a price that makes sense.

If you think I sound pissed, I am. For one good reason, I’ve been living in rentals watching this BS since 2004 when I sold my place and subsequently got out bid on other properties. I’ve now watch those properties resell, refinance or in general just F-up and now get foreclosed.

You haven’t seen anger until you take my money and give it to the dumbshits that bought the places I wanted because they’re poor little homedebtors that are too stupid to have known what they were doing.

[no_such_reality]

For all the talk of “saving homeowners”…..

What homeowmers?

I don’t see no homeowners asking for a bail out, I see people that aren’t paying their bills on something they never could afford whining they want to kept what isn’t rightfully theirs anymore.

If they want it, they can pay their bills. If they don’t want to pay the bill, get the f— out. Then someone that can pay the bill and is willing to pay the bill, will pay the bill at a price that makes sense.

If you think I sound pissed, I am. For one good reason, I’ve been living in rentals watching this BS since 2004 when I sold my place and subsequently got out bid on other properties. I’ve now watch those properties resell, refinance or in general just F-up and now get foreclosed.

You haven’t seen anger until you take my money and give it to the dumbshits that bought the places I wanted because they’re poor little homedebtors that are too stupid to have known what they were doing.

[no_such_reality]

For all the talk of “saving homeowners”…..

What homeowmers?

I don’t see no homeowners asking for a bail out, I see people that aren’t paying their bills on something they never could afford whining they want to kept what isn’t rightfully theirs anymore.

If they want it, they can pay their bills. If they don’t want to pay the bill, get the f— out. Then someone that can pay the bill and is willing to pay the bill, will pay the bill at a price that makes sense.

If you think I sound pissed, I am. For one good reason, I’ve been living in rentals watching this BS since 2004 when I sold my place and subsequently got out bid on other properties. I’ve now watch those properties resell, refinance or in general just F-up and now get foreclosed.

You haven’t seen anger until you take my money and give it to the dumbshits that bought the places I wanted because they’re poor little homedebtors that are too stupid to have known what they were doing.

[no_such_reality]

For all the talk of “saving homeowners”…..

What homeowmers?

I don’t see no homeowners asking for a bail out, I see people that aren’t paying their bills on something they never could afford whining they want to kept what isn’t rightfully theirs anymore.

If they want it, they can pay their bills. If they don’t want to pay the bill, get the f— out. Then someone that can pay the bill and is willing to pay the bill, will pay the bill at a price that makes sense.

If you think I sound pissed, I am. For one good reason, I’ve been living in rentals watching this BS since 2004 when I sold my place and subsequently got out bid on other properties. I’ve now watch those properties resell, refinance or in general just F-up and now get foreclosed.

You haven’t seen anger until you take my money and give it to the dumbshits that bought the places I wanted because they’re poor little homedebtors that are too stupid to have known what they were doing.

[no_such_reality]

For all the talk of “saving homeowners”…..

What homeowmers?

I don’t see no homeowners asking for a bail out, I see people that aren’t paying their bills on something they never could afford whining they want to kept what isn’t rightfully theirs anymore.

If they want it, they can pay their bills. If they don’t want to pay the bill, get the f— out. Then someone that can pay the bill and is willing to pay the bill, will pay the bill at a price that makes sense.

If you think I sound pissed, I am. For one good reason, I’ve been living in rentals watching this BS since 2004 when I sold my place and subsequently got out bid on other properties. I’ve now watch those properties resell, refinance or in general just F-up and now get foreclosed.

You haven’t seen anger until you take my money and give it to the dumbshits that bought the places I wanted because they’re poor little homedebtors that are too stupid to have known what they were doing.

[HLS]

1) The gooberment calls them homeowners.
They are in denial just like the house occupants.

2) You represent the majority that may need to revolt/riot

3) I’m on your side

HLS

[HLS]

1) The gooberment calls them homeowners.
They are in denial just like the house occupants.

2) You represent the majority that may need to revolt/riot

3) I’m on your side

HLS

[HLS]

1) The gooberment calls them homeowners.
They are in denial just like the house occupants.

2) You represent the majority that may need to revolt/riot

3) I’m on your side

HLS

[HLS]

1) The gooberment calls them homeowners.
They are in denial just like the house occupants.

2) You represent the majority that may need to revolt/riot

3) I’m on your side

HLS

[HLS]

1) The gooberment calls them homeowners.
They are in denial just like the house occupants.

2) You represent the majority that may need to revolt/riot

3) I’m on your side

HLS

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=jpinpb]If everyone gets money from the gov, that would homeowners and renters. If just the homeowners get bailed, the renters get screwed again, doubly, b/c their tax dollars will/is helping the bailout.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. Renters presumably have jobs. Many of those jobs would disappear in a depression. So avoiding a depression would be in renters’ best interests.
how are they getting screwed? I’m not seeing it.[/quote]

They are getting screwed because even in a depression not all of them are losing their jobs. We had 25% unemployment in the depths of the depression. For most of the late 30’s it was “only” in the high Teens. Since then, we have never come close to 25% and even now are still under 7%. Add in all the diseffected U6 groups and it rises to about 13% or so. Considering that ‘full’ employment is about 5% (there will always be some that are unemployable or transitioning careers) we would only really be benifiting less than 8% of the population if we are using the “well they get to keep their jobs” phylosophy. Considering that about 65% of Americans are “owners”; renters who get to keep their job would make up no more than 3-4% (rounding up) of the population. While nothing to sneeze at, that tiny minority of the population could most likely be served far better with other programs. So doing something that hurts the majority of renters to save a minority of them who most likely could benifit far more from some other, non-trickel down, plan is screwing them as a whole.

Plus I have a feeling that the “average” (your average) renter would love to buy a house, but cant afford one. Reducing principle for those who already own will have a huge opertunity cost for the majority of renters who will keep their job no matter what and would like to buy a house they could afford.

On a seperate note, I believe the majority of renters are young. Renting is very common in your teens and twenties, but not so much in your 30’s 40, and 50’s. So this is the population that will have to pay a markedly higher cost of living (if it isnt “markedly higher” why are we doing it???) paying for overpriced houses and higher tax rates. This will force them into lower standards of living in the future, reducing our overall standard of living for atleast a generation or two. That isnt screwing them either?

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=jpinpb]If everyone gets money from the gov, that would homeowners and renters. If just the homeowners get bailed, the renters get screwed again, doubly, b/c their tax dollars will/is helping the bailout.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. Renters presumably have jobs. Many of those jobs would disappear in a depression. So avoiding a depression would be in renters’ best interests.
how are they getting screwed? I’m not seeing it.[/quote]

They are getting screwed because even in a depression not all of them are losing their jobs. We had 25% unemployment in the depths of the depression. For most of the late 30’s it was “only” in the high Teens. Since then, we have never come close to 25% and even now are still under 7%. Add in all the diseffected U6 groups and it rises to about 13% or so. Considering that ‘full’ employment is about 5% (there will always be some that are unemployable or transitioning careers) we would only really be benifiting less than 8% of the population if we are using the “well they get to keep their jobs” phylosophy. Considering that about 65% of Americans are “owners”; renters who get to keep their job would make up no more than 3-4% (rounding up) of the population. While nothing to sneeze at, that tiny minority of the population could most likely be served far better with other programs. So doing something that hurts the majority of renters to save a minority of them who most likely could benifit far more from some other, non-trickel down, plan is screwing them as a whole.

Plus I have a feeling that the “average” (your average) renter would love to buy a house, but cant afford one. Reducing principle for those who already own will have a huge opertunity cost for the majority of renters who will keep their job no matter what and would like to buy a house they could afford.

On a seperate note, I believe the majority of renters are young. Renting is very common in your teens and twenties, but not so much in your 30’s 40, and 50’s. So this is the population that will have to pay a markedly higher cost of living (if it isnt “markedly higher” why are we doing it???) paying for overpriced houses and higher tax rates. This will force them into lower standards of living in the future, reducing our overall standard of living for atleast a generation or two. That isnt screwing them either?

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=jpinpb]If everyone gets money from the gov, that would homeowners and renters. If just the homeowners get bailed, the renters get screwed again, doubly, b/c their tax dollars will/is helping the bailout.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. Renters presumably have jobs. Many of those jobs would disappear in a depression. So avoiding a depression would be in renters’ best interests.
how are they getting screwed? I’m not seeing it.[/quote]

They are getting screwed because even in a depression not all of them are losing their jobs. We had 25% unemployment in the depths of the depression. For most of the late 30’s it was “only” in the high Teens. Since then, we have never come close to 25% and even now are still under 7%. Add in all the diseffected U6 groups and it rises to about 13% or so. Considering that ‘full’ employment is about 5% (there will always be some that are unemployable or transitioning careers) we would only really be benifiting less than 8% of the population if we are using the “well they get to keep their jobs” phylosophy. Considering that about 65% of Americans are “owners”; renters who get to keep their job would make up no more than 3-4% (rounding up) of the population. While nothing to sneeze at, that tiny minority of the population could most likely be served far better with other programs. So doing something that hurts the majority of renters to save a minority of them who most likely could benifit far more from some other, non-trickel down, plan is screwing them as a whole.

Plus I have a feeling that the “average” (your average) renter would love to buy a house, but cant afford one. Reducing principle for those who already own will have a huge opertunity cost for the majority of renters who will keep their job no matter what and would like to buy a house they could afford.

On a seperate note, I believe the majority of renters are young. Renting is very common in your teens and twenties, but not so much in your 30’s 40, and 50’s. So this is the population that will have to pay a markedly higher cost of living (if it isnt “markedly higher” why are we doing it???) paying for overpriced houses and higher tax rates. This will force them into lower standards of living in the future, reducing our overall standard of living for atleast a generation or two. That isnt screwing them either?

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=jpinpb]If everyone gets money from the gov, that would homeowners and renters. If just the homeowners get bailed, the renters get screwed again, doubly, b/c their tax dollars will/is helping the bailout.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. Renters presumably have jobs. Many of those jobs would disappear in a depression. So avoiding a depression would be in renters’ best interests.
how are they getting screwed? I’m not seeing it.[/quote]

They are getting screwed because even in a depression not all of them are losing their jobs. We had 25% unemployment in the depths of the depression. For most of the late 30’s it was “only” in the high Teens. Since then, we have never come close to 25% and even now are still under 7%. Add in all the diseffected U6 groups and it rises to about 13% or so. Considering that ‘full’ employment is about 5% (there will always be some that are unemployable or transitioning careers) we would only really be benifiting less than 8% of the population if we are using the “well they get to keep their jobs” phylosophy. Considering that about 65% of Americans are “owners”; renters who get to keep their job would make up no more than 3-4% (rounding up) of the population. While nothing to sneeze at, that tiny minority of the population could most likely be served far better with other programs. So doing something that hurts the majority of renters to save a minority of them who most likely could benifit far more from some other, non-trickel down, plan is screwing them as a whole.

Plus I have a feeling that the “average” (your average) renter would love to buy a house, but cant afford one. Reducing principle for those who already own will have a huge opertunity cost for the majority of renters who will keep their job no matter what and would like to buy a house they could afford.

On a seperate note, I believe the majority of renters are young. Renting is very common in your teens and twenties, but not so much in your 30’s 40, and 50’s. So this is the population that will have to pay a markedly higher cost of living (if it isnt “markedly higher” why are we doing it???) paying for overpriced houses and higher tax rates. This will force them into lower standards of living in the future, reducing our overall standard of living for atleast a generation or two. That isnt screwing them either?

[Author]

Posts