It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Delinquent Homeowners to Get Mortgage Aid from Obama Administration

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Infrasilent
Didn't we just have a bailout that was supposed to ameliorate this condition? NOW he wants to give money to people to keep them in their homes...I seem to remember this was discussed before... Guess those good-hearted banksters reneged on the deal... what a surprise!

And most people will think he is just stupid...not outright evil...

The government wouldn't be giving this money to the people, it would be going to the bankers to save them a 2nd time from the same problem they were supposedly bailed out of two years ago.

The banks have already received payoffs on many if not most or all of these mortgages through the bailouts of recent past. Why are you attacking the "delinquent" homeowners now? The proper target is the banks who would be getting a 2nd bailout on the same bad loans. Were you bitching about the bankers getting bailed out when that happened?

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:12 PM
I didn't read through all of the thread, but people who slamming the delinquents pffft.
Is it not helping the banks again ? It's just disguised as helping the people less fortunate.
Yes hard up people will benefit, but whos going to end up with the bailout money them or the banks ?

lol I think I should've read the post above mine before writing. oops.
edit on 5-6-2011 by JustXeno because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by neo96

Well think of it like this.

If TARP is in effect and they're collecting 700 billion; would it not be better for a small percentage go to help an unemployed homeowner, rather than all of it go to bail out the bank?

I don't like the idea of TARP to begin with, but if you're going to have taxpayer monies bail out the banks, you may as well have a portion helping out the folks who the banks led astray in the first place.

Give the TARP money to the people by paying off their mortgages. The money ends up in the bankers' pockets just the same as it does by giving it directly to the bankers, with one difference: the people also benefit and the bankers cannot go after them to recover the same money they were just given by the government.

Oh, there's an additional benefit. All the money the "delinquent" homeowners were having to pay to the bankers in mortgage interest is suddenly freed up to purchase goods and services, thus stimulating the economy.

Finally, the government's/Fed's practice of lending money to financial institutions at a fraction of a % so that they can turn around and lend it to homebuyers for 4% to 20% needs to stop. How many homeowners would be delinquent on their mortgages if they enjoyed the same interest rates the banks enjoy? Likely ZERO!!!

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:19 PM
this is just more fluff to cast Øbama in a favorable light as a 'populist' for the approaching campaign season

if one notes the following closing statement found in the OP article:

... "Principal reduction is an option (for the servicers.) But they don't do it. They will do everything else first," she said.

this has been an ongoing problem... the mortgage holders will negotiate a reduced payment... but the reduction is more than made up for at the back end of the mortgage payments due over the life of the contract....

the banks insist that the marked up prices were realistic back in the housing boom era and for the average joe & jane 6 pack buying a $300,000 McMansion (cookie-cutter trac-home)...
but let the residence be a $900K plus custom home of a banker or derivatives dealer and they would be eager to reduce the mortgage balance...

This money has been sitting there because many underwater homeowners say there's too much red tape for the effort & nothing short of issuing a lower priced mortgage will do --- which of course the banks/lenders will not do unless its yto their advantage,

i really don't have the warewithal to dig up the testimonials & articles published on the non-effective program that the administration is strutting around about... but they are numberous.... i think i heard that something like 3 million homes would be eligible but only something like 30,000 have engaged in bank renegotiations--- that promotes lower payments (for a term)


posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:42 PM
I have no clue as to why anyone would even discuss anything with these posters? These are known Obama bashers and if it's not this, it's something else. No matter what Obama does..they will be against.

I also find that when conservatives are against something....they are thinking of the colored and are surprised to find out that it also affects the whites too.

When they think of delinquent home owners they see colored people, when they think of welfare they think color and when you talk about people needing healthcare..they see color..because they assume only the colored people would need these stuff because no white person would need any help from the government.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:08 PM
Better to "bail out" homeowners than banks.

I just love how some think that banks are worth bailing out, but honest hardworking people aren't, especially when you consider that the banks are to blame for the current mess.

The myth of drip down economics is just that - a myth. It doesn't work and serves only to concentrate more money and power in the hands of the few.

A much better idea is drip UP economics - and that's what we are seeing here.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:20 PM
yeah yeah, bailouts suck, and the government sucks, and we certainly don't want to see the banks get any more profit off us. but the anti-poor rhetoric is rediculous around here. the poor are always parting you people from your precious tax dollars. might as well line em all up and euthanize the whole bunch, eh? but nope, cause you see your tax dollars will just goto something else you have no control over.

this ain't the carter era of welfare people, sure there still is people out to game the system, but please believe the economy is crap and there isn't much in the way of jobs coming along. I'd much rather see my money goto a struggling american trying to save thier home rather then some stupid war, israel, wall street, etc.......

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by Section31

Trust me help wont be coming to anyone unless your a minority and go apply to Acorn. This is just more lip service to please his people. We know what he is full of!!!!

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by Section31

Trust me help wont be coming to anyone unless your a minority and go apply to Acorn. This is just more lip service to please his people. We know what he is full of!!!!

Exactly what do you mean by "his people"? Bold is mine by the way.

Do you mean Americans?
Is that what you mean by "his people"?

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Section31
Sorry man.

I'm just mentally cracking up from this news.

This crap is wrong on so many levels.
edit on 6/4/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

I'd be more furious bailing out banks that turn around a f*** us over anyway, then I would bailing out American citizens.

But you don't care the the banks took 9x that amount and still foreclosed on many peoples homes.

Stimulate my package?? Err Stimulation package...
edit on 5-6-2011 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Wrong question. Allow me to elucidate you.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

- Article XXV, clause 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The United States voted as one of the 48 nations in favor of the Declaration. The Declaration is a foundational document of the United Nations, of which the United States is a founding member. It provides definition to the terms "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" used in the United nations Charter; this charter is legally binding to all member states, including, of course, the United States of America.

I don't care about the United Nations. I care about the United States.

Allow me to explain something to you. This is fifth-grade level social studies, so you may want to sit down and take some notes.

The treaties, charters, and resolutions arrived to in the UN are legally binding for all member states of the United Nations; this includes the United States. This is acceptable under United States constitutional law, as the Constitution itself allows for the nation to enter under such legally-binding agreements and treaties with international and multinational entities.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is thus UNITES STATES LAW.

if you don't like this, you can move to a non-member such as the Holy See or perhaps Taiwan. or you can content yourself with a member state that lacks the ethical foundations to even try to observe their treaty obligations such as Somalia or Pakistan. If you do not like that the United States is making an attempt to care for its own citizens when they are in need, then please, stop cluttering up my nation and get your social darwinist ass the # out.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:45 PM
I have no bloody idea why you are all getting so angry and pissed off, what is your problem? eh? I see you have no problem with the almighty goverment taking your money but have you ever sat down and think what would happen to those people that are getting help?

Left out on the street to suffer, that's what. Oh, you don't care I see. Well this world would be better off without you. We are all human and we should be helping each other. Like people have stated, some people are like that because they can't help it.

Like me for example, I am currently on the jobseekers(From the UK) My mother passed away this year and we've had problem after problem. My father is disabled and unable to work. I was accepted into 5 uni's but had to drop them due to this and even with a college education I am unable to find work, paying work that is. As I work for a charity just hoping that it might lead to a paid job.

So really, get off your damn high horses. Infact you should be glad it's going to people because hey, it won't be going to your pocket anyway!

Utterly selfish and self centred.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:57 PM

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

i am for me

i am for personal responsiblity

i take care of me and mine and i dont expect people to crap for me.

i rise or fall on my own accord

and i give no man and no government power over me or my situation at any given time.

by extenstion big government is something i do not want.

Do you perhaps live in a cave in some international zone, where you craft your own weapons to hunt the wily musk-oxen in your clan's territory? Are you communicating to us via a clever arrangement of coconuts, moss, and deer antlers that tap into something analogous to the internet?

If you are not, then you are, plain and simple, lying out your ass. You are not self-made. You are not isolated. You owe people, and I'm sure there are people who owe you in turn. You rise or fall depending on what happens to the world around you, the people you know, your employers or your employees, the government that manages or mismanages the society you live under, and you are both the beneficiary of your own ancestors' work and the developer of what your own descendants will inherit.

You are for you, yet you remain nestled in the midst of a greater society that you refuse to acknowledge; This is pretty much the textbook definition of selfishness.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:35 PM
Its just sadd when Americans attack eachother like this , several good points in this thread ... The people who have busted there ass , worked hard and still are under water ..How is all this there fault , it is not there fault that this country is now filled with crybabbies who expect everyone to do everything for them .. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME
Thats all you see and hear anymore , I wish i would have been born in the 60s and lived in this country when it was still a good place to live , now i bust my ass , pay my bill and still take it up the a$% from the system everyday . I do not know the solution but i can tell you its not continuing to make rich people richer and poor people poorer ...

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:44 PM
This is the Federal Gov't stepping in to try and get these homeowners out of these bad mortage deals they were suckere dinto from the get go.

From a previous post of mine on this exact topic :

People were suckered into accepting a mortage they could not afford and how the banks had shady practices that when someone attempted to either read the agreement in full or asked a q the classic response was "This is time sensitive and you can't get a better deal anywhere else".

When the mortage market was loosened in 2005 that was supposed to be a good thing but the banks used that as an oppourtunity to sucker alot of people into bad deals whereas they had no right to do so from the getgo.

They were getting as low as 5.000% introductory teaser rates that doubled to 10.000% after about 2 yrs that tripled to north of 30.000% when the Lipper Average reset. When you are expecting your mortage payment to be around say $500 a month you had alot of people structuring their budgets around that to allocate that money but out of nowhere their mortage monthly payments shot up to north of $1,500 a month meant that forced alot of people into financial collapse. The overall plan was a good one but once the banks and lenders got their fangs and talons into it the entire system went to hell. Alot of these banks sold, resold and resold again alot of these debts making paying them down so complex because after about 3 yrs or so you didn't know who owned your debt. A moritorium was placed in 09 to end that practice that read as long as the homeowner is up to date and is paying down the debt that no entity could sell any mortgage to any external entity.

This is what happened. Banks turned an otherwise good program and twisted and spun it to perform the ultimate screwjob on the American homeowner. This is the White House and The US Federal Gov't protecting the homeowners from the greedy and the draconian policies courtesy of the banks and lenders they linked up with and whoever thinks this is somehow wrong really need a reality cheque and their heads examined.

This is a primo example of when the people requires protection from nefarious entities who worked and conspired to kill the mortage marketplace which btw nearly wiped out this great nation.
edit on 5-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:20 PM
This is ridiculous, helping out people who got into mortgages they didn't understand and can't afford, and then got in trouble when the rates went up, when they remortgaged their home at a higher value, or when they lost their job.

It is silly that these folks get all the assistance, when regular folks who stayed sensible, lived within their means, and found ways to pay their bills get nothing.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by neo96

i think i am just going to quit and go on welfare and take the money that is earned from the blood and sweat and tears of others.


I HIGHLY encourage you to do this. It might wake you up to the reality of welfare and not the fantasy you continue to perpetuate.

You mean the fantasy that Obama just promised to give your money to someone else for being irresponsible and not paying their bills? I'm glad you're OK with that. Most sane people aren't.


posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by The Old American

You mean the fantasy that Obama just promised to give your money to someone else for being irresponsible and not paying their bills? I'm glad you're OK with that. Most sane people aren't.


Not that many of these people ended up that way because they were irresponsible. (A few---flippers and "investors" of multiple homes---shouldn't get anything). Mostly they're involuntarily unemployed or sick.

Now consider, that GWB and Hank Paulson promised to--and did---give Tons of money to the industry which wasn't just irresponsible and didn't plan for Bad Times, but to the industry which completely screwed it up and created the Bad Times, with massive fraud, criminality and making/extracting huge amounts of $$$ before the crash, and which is still to this day completely unrepentant, completely unindicted and back to extracting huge amounts of $$$.

Suppose these delinquent homeowners could also borrow money at 0.01% from the Federal Reserve?

So, redirecting just a wee bit of that from the bankers to the people they directly or indirectly hurt. Rough justice, but justice it is.
edit on 5-6-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by The Old American

I love this "responsibility" meme.

Tell us, how "responsible" are you? Surely you are self-employed in a growth industry, sheltering yourself against both the economic downturn and the vagaries of workplace politics and bottom lines. And, of course, you own your own home rather than rent, since it's irresponsible to rent (never know when the place might get sold from under you, after all!). And of course, the home you own has no mortgage, and even if it did, you spent the years necessary to understand every stenciled scrap of legalese in such a document, and are crafty enough to wheel and deal with the banks on it - hypothetically, of course, since it's the height of irresponsibility to go into joint ownership on a big purchase like a home. Of course, you have a rock-solid pre-nup, and perform regular home and automotive maintenance. I would guess you have full health coverage, but the fact is, a responsible person like you has removed all potential risks from his home and workplace anyway, thus making health insurance redundant.

Right? Surely you've got all this down and are the unquestionable paragon of responsibility.

However, most people just aren't as awesome as you. While you, being the exceptional stud that you are, are self-employed in an industry unthreatened by the recession, most people have a boss and work in a job that is shrinking. Sucks to be them, of course.

Similarly, while you have full deed and title to your home (built by your ancestors' own hands, since responsibility is surely genetic, and none of THEM would ever mortgage, either!) most people rent or have a mortgage - schmucks, I know, but hey, not everyone can be as responsible - and independently wealthy - as yourself. of course, many of these mortgaging schlemiels haven't been able to set the time aside to become a notary public, as you have managed to do, and mortgage contracts can be baffling - and the bank, of course (being the height of responsibility) isn't going to cut off its own feet if it doesn't have to.

And we mere mortals are often at risk from diseases, lightning, poor drivers, and even the occasional tiger - Sadly, we're just not as thorough as you at removing all possible threats to our health.

While some of us are so foolish as to invest in health insurance, many simply can't afford it (remember, shaky jobs and bills to pay, 'cause they're irresponsible, after all) and those who can often lack options when the claim is denied and they are forced to pay from their own savings.

So while I'm happy that you are so exceptional and amazing, the sad fact is, most of us haven't had the fine fortune and forethought you had from the day you climbed out of the womb and started day trading.

I mean really, your case is sort of like Usain Bolt criticizing someone who gets eaten by a tiger for not running fast enough.
edit on 5/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Finally, a voice of sarcastic reason!
These me, my, mine folks are so many, and I am so few.
Its a sad day when you have to explain to fellow citizens why it's a good thing that there are societal safety nets. I'm guessing these are mostly white, solidly middle class, and never had many hard knocks. Funny how perspective means so very much...

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in