Intentional defaulting, not subprime mortgage is the problem

[Rt.66]

briansd1,
The CEOs of the thousands of responsible banks who did not participate in bubble madness would probably disagree with you.

They think that banks that deserve to fail from a series of bad decisions on top of disastrous decisions should be allowed to fail and the healthy and smart banks should be left to take the reins.

Instead the banks that give giant donations to Gov. Representatives are deemed too big to fail and we the tax payer get to subsidize their loses while they continue to this day to privatize their ill gotten gains.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[donaldduckmoore]

[quote=jpinpb]I should not generalize and maybe that is the problem. Too many scenarious. From what I’m seeing, there are many NODs that have taken a year to foreclose. That means a year that people have not paid their mortgage, right? I pay my rent b/c my landlord is not likely to let me live there for free for a year.

So in the situation of year-free mortgage living, the only suffering is credit. Money that was to be used for mortgage is being used for whatever, bills, bank, etc. If and when the foreclosure happens, it hurts their credit. So I’m missing where the suffering is. They lived in a nice house and gambled that they would have equity built up and when it didn’t happen, they lived their for free for a year and now,{gasp} rent (oh the horror and suffering). Credit can be repaired in a few years.

Investors purchasing multiple properties and renting out have suffered how? They stopped paying their mortgage on their properties while still collecting rents. From what I’m seeing, banks seem to be foreclosing a little sooner on investors. Seems like about 6 to 8 months.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the suffering. I am sure I’m missing something.

Some banks did not make bad loans. Others were notorious for it. Countrywide got taken over by BA which had taxpayer help, right? And the guy from Countrywide made out like a bandit and from what I understand, started another company.

No. I believe suffering has been minimal.

Edit: I add, as I said before, relative to the loans that were made.[/quote]

Indeed, these people did not suffer at all. What is more important to point out is that most of these flippers were using zero downpayment to buy n number of houses, they rent them out, collecting rent, now they do not pay mortgage because they intent to foreclose, so that they are actually gaining money out of the whole situation. In addition, they could write down their income tax before they move out. It is a win-win situation to them. You are right, the only thing that they suffer is a minor credit dent that will recover 7 years later. What is the loss.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on. [/quote]

To me the most important thing we can do is to keep speaking up. Only when people continue to speak up does the truth get passed on. If you remain silent, the truth gets buried by the Orwellian groupthink put forward by those taking advantage of the situation.

[quote=briansd1]Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option. [/quote]

I keep hearing this, but I’m not at all convinced. We were told the same thing about GM and Crysler. But now they are both going through bankruptcy and the world isn’t coming to an end. I’m sure it would have been tough to put these large banks through bankruptcy, but it’s been tough, and continues to be expensive to keep them afloat with taxpayer dollars. The FDIC has taken over many banks and bankruptcy courts have processed many bankruptcies over the years.

Yes the scale would be larger, and the government might have needed to be proactive in trying to sort things out quickly, but I don’t see any evidence that it couldn’t have been done.

What I do see is a lot of Goldmanites and former Goldmanites and people that work for/with Goldmanites saying “Oh no it couldn’t be done. It would be the end of the world. If you don’t see that then you must be uninformed and stupid.” Sorry, I just don’t see that as a convincing argument. But who knows, maybe I am uninformed and stupid. Wouldn’t be the first time.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on. [/quote]

To me the most important thing we can do is to keep speaking up. Only when people continue to speak up does the truth get passed on. If you remain silent, the truth gets buried by the Orwellian groupthink put forward by those taking advantage of the situation.

[quote=briansd1]Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option. [/quote]

I keep hearing this, but I’m not at all convinced. We were told the same thing about GM and Crysler. But now they are both going through bankruptcy and the world isn’t coming to an end. I’m sure it would have been tough to put these large banks through bankruptcy, but it’s been tough, and continues to be expensive to keep them afloat with taxpayer dollars. The FDIC has taken over many banks and bankruptcy courts have processed many bankruptcies over the years.

Yes the scale would be larger, and the government might have needed to be proactive in trying to sort things out quickly, but I don’t see any evidence that it couldn’t have been done.

What I do see is a lot of Goldmanites and former Goldmanites and people that work for/with Goldmanites saying “Oh no it couldn’t be done. It would be the end of the world. If you don’t see that then you must be uninformed and stupid.” Sorry, I just don’t see that as a convincing argument. But who knows, maybe I am uninformed and stupid. Wouldn’t be the first time.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on. [/quote]

To me the most important thing we can do is to keep speaking up. Only when people continue to speak up does the truth get passed on. If you remain silent, the truth gets buried by the Orwellian groupthink put forward by those taking advantage of the situation.

[quote=briansd1]Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option. [/quote]

I keep hearing this, but I’m not at all convinced. We were told the same thing about GM and Crysler. But now they are both going through bankruptcy and the world isn’t coming to an end. I’m sure it would have been tough to put these large banks through bankruptcy, but it’s been tough, and continues to be expensive to keep them afloat with taxpayer dollars. The FDIC has taken over many banks and bankruptcy courts have processed many bankruptcies over the years.

Yes the scale would be larger, and the government might have needed to be proactive in trying to sort things out quickly, but I don’t see any evidence that it couldn’t have been done.

What I do see is a lot of Goldmanites and former Goldmanites and people that work for/with Goldmanites saying “Oh no it couldn’t be done. It would be the end of the world. If you don’t see that then you must be uninformed and stupid.” Sorry, I just don’t see that as a convincing argument. But who knows, maybe I am uninformed and stupid. Wouldn’t be the first time.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on. [/quote]

To me the most important thing we can do is to keep speaking up. Only when people continue to speak up does the truth get passed on. If you remain silent, the truth gets buried by the Orwellian groupthink put forward by those taking advantage of the situation.

[quote=briansd1]Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option. [/quote]

I keep hearing this, but I’m not at all convinced. We were told the same thing about GM and Crysler. But now they are both going through bankruptcy and the world isn’t coming to an end. I’m sure it would have been tough to put these large banks through bankruptcy, but it’s been tough, and continues to be expensive to keep them afloat with taxpayer dollars. The FDIC has taken over many banks and bankruptcy courts have processed many bankruptcies over the years.

Yes the scale would be larger, and the government might have needed to be proactive in trying to sort things out quickly, but I don’t see any evidence that it couldn’t have been done.

What I do see is a lot of Goldmanites and former Goldmanites and people that work for/with Goldmanites saying “Oh no it couldn’t be done. It would be the end of the world. If you don’t see that then you must be uninformed and stupid.” Sorry, I just don’t see that as a convincing argument. But who knows, maybe I am uninformed and stupid. Wouldn’t be the first time.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on. [/quote]

To me the most important thing we can do is to keep speaking up. Only when people continue to speak up does the truth get passed on. If you remain silent, the truth gets buried by the Orwellian groupthink put forward by those taking advantage of the situation.

[quote=briansd1]Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option. [/quote]

I keep hearing this, but I’m not at all convinced. We were told the same thing about GM and Crysler. But now they are both going through bankruptcy and the world isn’t coming to an end. I’m sure it would have been tough to put these large banks through bankruptcy, but it’s been tough, and continues to be expensive to keep them afloat with taxpayer dollars. The FDIC has taken over many banks and bankruptcy courts have processed many bankruptcies over the years.

Yes the scale would be larger, and the government might have needed to be proactive in trying to sort things out quickly, but I don’t see any evidence that it couldn’t have been done.

What I do see is a lot of Goldmanites and former Goldmanites and people that work for/with Goldmanites saying “Oh no it couldn’t be done. It would be the end of the world. If you don’t see that then you must be uninformed and stupid.” Sorry, I just don’t see that as a convincing argument. But who knows, maybe I am uninformed and stupid. Wouldn’t be the first time.

XBoxBoy

[CA renter]

[quote=Rt.66]Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills%5B/quote%5D

Excellent post, Rt. 66!

I’ve always said that the best way to live within one’s means is to keep fixed costs as low as possible. Housing is the #1 fixed cost for most households, yet so many people fail to understand why LOW housing prices are a good thing! It’s because we are fixated on housing as an investment instead of shelter. We need to change that mindset.

Hopefully, if housing continues to decline over many, many years, people will finally stop throwing all their resources at housing, and we can grow our economy in a healthy and sustainable way.

[CA renter]

[quote=Rt.66]Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills%5B/quote%5D

Excellent post, Rt. 66!

I’ve always said that the best way to live within one’s means is to keep fixed costs as low as possible. Housing is the #1 fixed cost for most households, yet so many people fail to understand why LOW housing prices are a good thing! It’s because we are fixated on housing as an investment instead of shelter. We need to change that mindset.

Hopefully, if housing continues to decline over many, many years, people will finally stop throwing all their resources at housing, and we can grow our economy in a healthy and sustainable way.

[CA renter]

[quote=Rt.66]Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills%5B/quote%5D

Excellent post, Rt. 66!

I’ve always said that the best way to live within one’s means is to keep fixed costs as low as possible. Housing is the #1 fixed cost for most households, yet so many people fail to understand why LOW housing prices are a good thing! It’s because we are fixated on housing as an investment instead of shelter. We need to change that mindset.

Hopefully, if housing continues to decline over many, many years, people will finally stop throwing all their resources at housing, and we can grow our economy in a healthy and sustainable way.

[CA renter]

[quote=Rt.66]Here’s how I see it:

On one hand I’m pissed at the economic retards who thought “housing only goes up” and caused housing to become ridiculously unaffordable PLUS they were almost single handedly responsible for bringing down the financial system (when they stopped paying).

But we can’t help that now. So I try and see if anything good can come out of this. One only has to look at our Gov. and Goldman Sachs etc., today to see that it is us versus them. If they make a losing play they will simply confiscate tax dollars to make up for it and keep the multi-million dollar bonus train chugging. Yes, our tax dollars will pay for the walk-away’s ignorance of basic economics, but that’s a lesser of two evils compared with seeing my tax dollars line banker’s pockets. I am less fond of money changers than bubble-nuts.

What good can come out of this? A total reset of the debt servitude condition the bankers feed off of. Under water home owners can simply walk away, but the banks will have to come back for more money and after this next round of grossly inappropriate bonuses, their next visit to the tax payer trough won’t be so easy.

Hey, instead of paying a 30 year $3000 per month mortgage to bankers, wouldn’t it be nice to have a $1000 10 year note and have extra money to help family and friends, maybe support and few charities and consume, so our economic engine can rev-up again? There’s your recovery. Consumer spending needs to be around 70%, without bubbles the only way to achieve that is through disposable income, on real income.

The people have some power here. You people thinking now is a good time to buy are ruining it 🙂

Good story on bankers:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills%5B/quote%5D

Excellent post, Rt. 66!

I’ve always said that the best way to live within one’s means is to keep fixed costs as low as possible. Housing is the #1 fixed cost for most households, yet so many people fail to understand why LOW housing prices are a good thing! It’s because we are fixated on housing as an investment instead of shelter. We need to change that mindset.

Hopefully, if housing continues to decline over many, many years, people will finally stop throwing all their resources at housing, and we can grow our economy in a healthy and sustainable way.

[Author]

Posts