[mike92104]

I was disgusted when I heard the people calling their reps were being labeled as the “vocal minority” by the media. It dawned on me that the financial hacks all over the airwaves were up to the eyeballs in the stock market and NEEDED to get this passed. They were willing to say whatever they needed to.

[mike92104]

I was disgusted when I heard the people calling their reps were being labeled as the “vocal minority” by the media. It dawned on me that the financial hacks all over the airwaves were up to the eyeballs in the stock market and NEEDED to get this passed. They were willing to say whatever they needed to.

[mike92104]

I was disgusted when I heard the people calling their reps were being labeled as the “vocal minority” by the media. It dawned on me that the financial hacks all over the airwaves were up to the eyeballs in the stock market and NEEDED to get this passed. They were willing to say whatever they needed to.

[mike92104]

I was disgusted when I heard the people calling their reps were being labeled as the “vocal minority” by the media. It dawned on me that the financial hacks all over the airwaves were up to the eyeballs in the stock market and NEEDED to get this passed. They were willing to say whatever they needed to.

[mike92104]

I don’t think that government backed loans are a problem by themselves, and things would be fine if the bubble hadn’t occurred. I think a lot of the programs are good ideas, and generally do promote stability in lower income families. Remember here in SoCal it seems you need to make at least 80k just to get by with some decent standard of living, and the ability to save for retirement. If there hadn’t been a bubble, the homes would have held their value, and the banks would have been able to recover their costs without the government stepping in.

[mike92104]

I don’t think that government backed loans are a problem by themselves, and things would be fine if the bubble hadn’t occurred. I think a lot of the programs are good ideas, and generally do promote stability in lower income families. Remember here in SoCal it seems you need to make at least 80k just to get by with some decent standard of living, and the ability to save for retirement. If there hadn’t been a bubble, the homes would have held their value, and the banks would have been able to recover their costs without the government stepping in.

[mike92104]

I don’t think that government backed loans are a problem by themselves, and things would be fine if the bubble hadn’t occurred. I think a lot of the programs are good ideas, and generally do promote stability in lower income families. Remember here in SoCal it seems you need to make at least 80k just to get by with some decent standard of living, and the ability to save for retirement. If there hadn’t been a bubble, the homes would have held their value, and the banks would have been able to recover their costs without the government stepping in.

[mike92104]

I don’t think that government backed loans are a problem by themselves, and things would be fine if the bubble hadn’t occurred. I think a lot of the programs are good ideas, and generally do promote stability in lower income families. Remember here in SoCal it seems you need to make at least 80k just to get by with some decent standard of living, and the ability to save for retirement. If there hadn’t been a bubble, the homes would have held their value, and the banks would have been able to recover their costs without the government stepping in.

[mike92104]

I don’t think that government backed loans are a problem by themselves, and things would be fine if the bubble hadn’t occurred. I think a lot of the programs are good ideas, and generally do promote stability in lower income families. Remember here in SoCal it seems you need to make at least 80k just to get by with some decent standard of living, and the ability to save for retirement. If there hadn’t been a bubble, the homes would have held their value, and the banks would have been able to recover their costs without the government stepping in.

[mike92104]

[quote=DaCounselor]I think the only way to stop the walk-aways is to modify the loans into very good fixed rates and write down the principal balances. I understand the moral hazard argument but at this point in time my response is “so what?” Even if a homeowner has the ability to pay the existing mortgage, it’s going to come down to WILL he pay, not CAN he pay. If he ruthlessly defaults, the end result is the same. Who cares at this point?

I cannot imagine that it will be more cost-effective to go through the foreclosure process just to end up selling the house as a discounted REO for the same price that you could have written down the balance to and kept the homeowner in the home. It’s a bad business decision to forego the mod. I understand the complications due to the securitization of these loans, but the govt’s purchase of this paper may resolve the issues. They do give a nod to this in Sections 109 & 110 of the new bill. We’ll see I guess.[/quote]

Banks would essentially be forced to write down every loan made between 2000 and now for it to be fair, and that still doesn’t address the fact that I knew I couldn’t afford a house, so I didn’t buy. What compensation should I get to make it fair? Should I get $100,000 check from the government?

[mike92104]

[quote=DaCounselor]I think the only way to stop the walk-aways is to modify the loans into very good fixed rates and write down the principal balances. I understand the moral hazard argument but at this point in time my response is “so what?” Even if a homeowner has the ability to pay the existing mortgage, it’s going to come down to WILL he pay, not CAN he pay. If he ruthlessly defaults, the end result is the same. Who cares at this point?

I cannot imagine that it will be more cost-effective to go through the foreclosure process just to end up selling the house as a discounted REO for the same price that you could have written down the balance to and kept the homeowner in the home. It’s a bad business decision to forego the mod. I understand the complications due to the securitization of these loans, but the govt’s purchase of this paper may resolve the issues. They do give a nod to this in Sections 109 & 110 of the new bill. We’ll see I guess.[/quote]

Banks would essentially be forced to write down every loan made between 2000 and now for it to be fair, and that still doesn’t address the fact that I knew I couldn’t afford a house, so I didn’t buy. What compensation should I get to make it fair? Should I get $100,000 check from the government?

[mike92104]

[quote=DaCounselor]I think the only way to stop the walk-aways is to modify the loans into very good fixed rates and write down the principal balances. I understand the moral hazard argument but at this point in time my response is “so what?” Even if a homeowner has the ability to pay the existing mortgage, it’s going to come down to WILL he pay, not CAN he pay. If he ruthlessly defaults, the end result is the same. Who cares at this point?

I cannot imagine that it will be more cost-effective to go through the foreclosure process just to end up selling the house as a discounted REO for the same price that you could have written down the balance to and kept the homeowner in the home. It’s a bad business decision to forego the mod. I understand the complications due to the securitization of these loans, but the govt’s purchase of this paper may resolve the issues. They do give a nod to this in Sections 109 & 110 of the new bill. We’ll see I guess.[/quote]

Banks would essentially be forced to write down every loan made between 2000 and now for it to be fair, and that still doesn’t address the fact that I knew I couldn’t afford a house, so I didn’t buy. What compensation should I get to make it fair? Should I get $100,000 check from the government?

[mike92104]

[quote=DaCounselor]I think the only way to stop the walk-aways is to modify the loans into very good fixed rates and write down the principal balances. I understand the moral hazard argument but at this point in time my response is “so what?” Even if a homeowner has the ability to pay the existing mortgage, it’s going to come down to WILL he pay, not CAN he pay. If he ruthlessly defaults, the end result is the same. Who cares at this point?

I cannot imagine that it will be more cost-effective to go through the foreclosure process just to end up selling the house as a discounted REO for the same price that you could have written down the balance to and kept the homeowner in the home. It’s a bad business decision to forego the mod. I understand the complications due to the securitization of these loans, but the govt’s purchase of this paper may resolve the issues. They do give a nod to this in Sections 109 & 110 of the new bill. We’ll see I guess.[/quote]

Banks would essentially be forced to write down every loan made between 2000 and now for it to be fair, and that still doesn’t address the fact that I knew I couldn’t afford a house, so I didn’t buy. What compensation should I get to make it fair? Should I get $100,000 check from the government?

[mike92104]

[quote=DaCounselor]I think the only way to stop the walk-aways is to modify the loans into very good fixed rates and write down the principal balances. I understand the moral hazard argument but at this point in time my response is “so what?” Even if a homeowner has the ability to pay the existing mortgage, it’s going to come down to WILL he pay, not CAN he pay. If he ruthlessly defaults, the end result is the same. Who cares at this point?

I cannot imagine that it will be more cost-effective to go through the foreclosure process just to end up selling the house as a discounted REO for the same price that you could have written down the balance to and kept the homeowner in the home. It’s a bad business decision to forego the mod. I understand the complications due to the securitization of these loans, but the govt’s purchase of this paper may resolve the issues. They do give a nod to this in Sections 109 & 110 of the new bill. We’ll see I guess.[/quote]

Banks would essentially be forced to write down every loan made between 2000 and now for it to be fair, and that still doesn’t address the fact that I knew I couldn’t afford a house, so I didn’t buy. What compensation should I get to make it fair? Should I get $100,000 check from the government?

[mike92104]

Ultimately, they will vote yes on the bailout. We will have to remember who voted for it and “throw the rascals out!” come election time. It’s the only way we will be able to change anything. When are Boxer and Feinstein up for re-election?

[Author]

Posts