'...in other words'? I disagree, it does NOT say give away for free. It says at a lower, non userious rate. It is not specific, so we don't know how high or low. Just lower than usurious. Perhaps 6,7, or 8 percent is not outrageous, but the 'points', the user fees, the late fees, they all are outrageous. If you bring it up to them that they are causeing you major problems, they are 'nice' enough to help you out in your single problem, but they don't change their highly profitable and corrupt 'policy'. Why should they? They are getting away with it.

What should have each and every fiscally-responsible home-buyer absolutely STEAMING pissed-off is the fact that borrowers who were stupid enough to live beyond their means will, almost positively, have the principal amount of their home loans reduced (by how much, who knows? I don't believe a particular amount is specified) thanks to the bailout bill.

This provision, along with the power to lower interest rates on current crappy home loans, was placed in the bailout bill by the House and remains today.

For example:
Idiot Borrower who earns $50K per year is loaned $400,000.00 by Greedy Lender, to be repaid over a 30-year period. Not long into the life of Idiot's mortgage, he realizes that he cannot afford the house he purchased. Multiply this scenario by a bunch...all hell breaks loose on the stock market.

Rather than having the POV of "we don't need no water, let the you-know-whater burn" with regard to the financial meltdown, Big Daddy Gov't steps in with yet another nail in the coffin containing our Constitution: the bailout bill.
Big Daddy says: instead of having to pay back $400,000.00, you'll only have to pay back $200,000.00 (or more, or less...who the hell knows at this point??) Big Daddy pats Idiot Borrower on the head, while those who are responsible and self-sufficient sit back and stew.

Will this principal reduction include folks who have non-toxic mortgages, or will it only be Idiot Borrowers?

My guess is only Idiot Borrowers....

Ezzi



[edit on 10-10-2008 by ezziboo]

[edit on 10-10-2008 by ezziboo]

This plan is such a crock... so the bank gets their full price, the homeowner maybe gets to stay housed, and all of us, who had nothing to do with it, get to pick up the tab for the difference.

I'm not sure why, other than it makes too much sense, nobody is talking about this plan:

These mortgages are re-negotiated, to maintain the face amount of the loan, but the time is extended so that the homeowner can make the payments.

So you start with a 30 year mortgage, now maybe it's 50.

Then, if all goes well (HAH), and the price of the home comes back up, then it can be sold or re-financed again to a more reasonable time span.

The homeowner stays housed, the bank actually comes out ahead in the long run due to more months of interest, and those of us who did not mis-behave don't pay for it.

And if the homeowner wants to sell at any time, it's just like it is anyway... you have to pay off the mortgage before you can sell the place (this happens all the time, in the sales contract). If they can't get enough of a price to do that, well too damn bad.

McCain is a Fiscal Socialist...


Following in the footsteps of the biggest Fiscal Socialist in American History...

George W Bush...

From Jorge to Juan...

I agree with the outrage a previous poster mentioned, with regard to paying for others 'idiotic' mistakes.

But perhaps this is the lesson Americans need to learn: we all pay for the mistakes of our idiots.

Are we our brother's keepers?

Look at the evidence: the current national debt is the direct result of the People being hoodwinked into allowing such irresponsibility.

Who is to blame for their trust? A better question: could we have better educated our fellow citizens, and avoided these sorts of problems?

While we at ATS are often fairly outspoken, consider the hypothetical of someone who did see this coming, knew convincing arguments that would inform people, but did not attempt to speak up or warn fellow citizens. Could they be considered blameless? How much less so, us -- all of us?

It is interesting to see the differing opinions here, thanks for sharing.

Personally I feel that people should be assisted if they only have one home, the one they are living in.

My family and I chose to get a loan far below what the mortgage company was telling us we qualified for, if we had not we would be in the same position as many people who are going into forclosure.

I wonder how many of you, that are calling those who are having problems "idiots" are truly aware of the loan tactics that banks and mortgage companies were using on people. I feel that these banks and mortgage companies were greedy and telling people they could afford more than they truly could, and because people want a home they can be proud of, they believed the lies they were told.

IMO these banks and mortgage companies should be held accountable, not given a bailout.

Greedy home buyer? How about the greedy, sleazy crooks who counterfeit the money to loan out? Politicians, bribed politicians, belong in prison for allowing this kind of robbery, making it 'politically correct'. Also the individuals in the FTC who allowed 'naked shorts', where people sell stocks they don't own. Many stock owners will find out soon, that they actually have ficticious stock; they lose. Thanks to the accessories to the fraud, in the FTC. It is not just the banks.

Originally posted by Gregarious
'...in other words'? I disagree, it does NOT say give away for free. It says at a lower, non userious rate.

You probably missed the point about the principal on the loan. It really amounts to a significant handout.

Here's my solution: use federal money to build spartan style family housing, no bells and whistles (basically a dorm). Let them foreclose and offer to rent this housing to displaced people at cost for some period of time, maybe buy the original house at market and hold on to it but not give it away.



[edit on 14-10-2008 by buddhasystem]

You have a choice when you go for financing the biggest investment of your life. I bought my house 4 years ago and was told I could get a bigger house with a non conventional mortgage, ie ARM or Interest Only. I opted for the smaller house, fixed interest rate realizing that this would not work out good in the long run.

So someone in the same position as me, who opted for the non traditional loan and gambled, will benefit?

I do not have any problem with negotiating interest rates, but the second you start adjusting principal owed to keep someone in their house is Ridiculous!!!

If it comes to that, it may be Torch and Pitchfork time.

What do you need for a car? A box to sit in, wheels, steering, an engine, and a banker. What do you need for a place to live? Land, a box to 'live' in, and a banker. Pretty neat to be a banker, huh? I want to stress that we don't need no stinkin banker to counterfeit money to loan out to us. The ready abundance of that counterfeit money drives up the prices, so that those paying cash can't afford it. There is not enough cash for bankers to loan out without counterfeiting, at the current inflated prices. It is all a giant scam, and the politicians who are supposedly representing us? They have all been bribed, thru the Political Action Committees, who the bankers send their bribes to, and the politicians just happened to 'legalize' this form of bribery. Legalized bribery, legalized theft. Incredible. No Hollywood writer could ever come up with a fiticious story to equal this.
What absolutely needs to be done, is to do away with banks loaning large sums and counterfeiting, and to eliminate PACs