What the hell????Throwing money after money after money…

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Just to clarify, HAMP is not a mandatory program. Outside of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, participation by lenders is voluntary. There are some incentives to participate, which are designed to encourage modification rather than foreclosure. From the lenders perspective, they are insufficient to turn a bad loan into a good loan.

Previous versions haven’t worked. This one won’t either.[/quote]
If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]
My point is that, since majority of the voters are home owners, those who want to get reelected will want the keep this group of voters happy. Decline RE price won’t keep this group happy. So, they’ll do whatever they can to get RE to go back up again. Successful or not, they’ll keep on trying. That’s not considering that RE decline will reduce the amount of tax $ they can collect as well. Which mean less money they have to spend. Maybe I’m just too cynical now, but I don’t see them stopping trying to get RE to go up again until they’re successful.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]
My point is that, since majority of the voters are home owners, those who want to get reelected will want the keep this group of voters happy. Decline RE price won’t keep this group happy. So, they’ll do whatever they can to get RE to go back up again. Successful or not, they’ll keep on trying. That’s not considering that RE decline will reduce the amount of tax $ they can collect as well. Which mean less money they have to spend. Maybe I’m just too cynical now, but I don’t see them stopping trying to get RE to go up again until they’re successful.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]
My point is that, since majority of the voters are home owners, those who want to get reelected will want the keep this group of voters happy. Decline RE price won’t keep this group happy. So, they’ll do whatever they can to get RE to go back up again. Successful or not, they’ll keep on trying. That’s not considering that RE decline will reduce the amount of tax $ they can collect as well. Which mean less money they have to spend. Maybe I’m just too cynical now, but I don’t see them stopping trying to get RE to go up again until they’re successful.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]
My point is that, since majority of the voters are home owners, those who want to get reelected will want the keep this group of voters happy. Decline RE price won’t keep this group happy. So, they’ll do whatever they can to get RE to go back up again. Successful or not, they’ll keep on trying. That’s not considering that RE decline will reduce the amount of tax $ they can collect as well. Which mean less money they have to spend. Maybe I’m just too cynical now, but I don’t see them stopping trying to get RE to go up again until they’re successful.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]
My point is that, since majority of the voters are home owners, those who want to get reelected will want the keep this group of voters happy. Decline RE price won’t keep this group happy. So, they’ll do whatever they can to get RE to go back up again. Successful or not, they’ll keep on trying. That’s not considering that RE decline will reduce the amount of tax $ they can collect as well. Which mean less money they have to spend. Maybe I’m just too cynical now, but I don’t see them stopping trying to get RE to go up again until they’re successful.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]

It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]

It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]

It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.[/quote]

It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.

[Author]

Posts