More Federal Intervention to Prevent Foreclosures

[Huckleberry]

[quote=jpinpb]If I’m to believe what I hear from various sources, including Mr. Mortgage, we’re looking at trillions and trillions that was pumped into the economy from about 2001 to 2007.

Can the government really rescue this crisis? Are they prepared to throw trillions into this?

Another thing: This economy was booming until recently. It went from the dotcom to real estate. Please consider everything that boosted our economy, b/c it was related in one way or another to real estate.

What will make our economy flourish again? We have to make our economy grow. What will create jobs that will replace the job losses in real estate and provide money that the ATM house machines were once dispensing?[/quote]

Agreed. Even if there are a plethora of govt programs to stem foreclosures and keep people in their homes, 45% of people (quote from Freddie Mac) don’t even want a “workout” unless it will give them positive equity in their home. They are walking even when the GSE is trying to help them. This is the case with the banks too.

If they can’t feel wealth from their home, they don’t have any incentive to stay in them.

Even if the govt does enact any or all of these new programs, they won’t be around for very long once they figure out that people are taking the write down and still walking away, inevitably foreclosing.

Until housing comes back to equilibrium with incomes, foreclosures are going to keep rolling, unless of course they pass new policies that force more “creative” mortgage financing, which got us into this mess in the first place.

[patientrenter]

SDR,

DaC and you are correct:

1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.

2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.

3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.

4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.

And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.

[patientrenter]

SDR,

DaC and you are correct:

1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.

2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.

3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.

4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.

And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.

[patientrenter]

SDR,

DaC and you are correct:

1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.

2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.

3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.

4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.

And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.

[patientrenter]

SDR,

DaC and you are correct:

1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.

2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.

3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.

4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.

And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.

[patientrenter]

SDR,

DaC and you are correct:

1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.

2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.

3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.

4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.

And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.

[kewp]

[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]

That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.

[kewp]

[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]

That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.

[kewp]

[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]

That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.

[kewp]

[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]

That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.

[kewp]

[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]

That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.

[jimmyle]

I have a friend who is planning to have his wife getting paid in cash (and not reporting her income) so he could get gov’t help if this homeowners bailout plan goes through. He bought a house in Temecula for $400K in 2004 with zero down and I believe he might have pulled out more cash in 2005.

[jimmyle]

I have a friend who is planning to have his wife getting paid in cash (and not reporting her income) so he could get gov’t help if this homeowners bailout plan goes through. He bought a house in Temecula for $400K in 2004 with zero down and I believe he might have pulled out more cash in 2005.

[jimmyle]

I have a friend who is planning to have his wife getting paid in cash (and not reporting her income) so he could get gov’t help if this homeowners bailout plan goes through. He bought a house in Temecula for $400K in 2004 with zero down and I believe he might have pulled out more cash in 2005.

[jimmyle]

I have a friend who is planning to have his wife getting paid in cash (and not reporting her income) so he could get gov’t help if this homeowners bailout plan goes through. He bought a house in Temecula for $400K in 2004 with zero down and I believe he might have pulled out more cash in 2005.

[Author]

Posts