PDA

View Full Version : More Mortgage Freebies from Obama ..ie taxpayers !



INTIMADATOR2007
07-07-2011, 05:00 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/07/07/mortgage-aid-for-unemployed-expanded/


"The Obama administration will require mortgage companies to extend more generous mortgage relief to help certain unemployed borrowers from losing their homes to foreclosure."




What makes him think he can tell people how to run there bussiness ?

AUTaxMan
07-07-2011, 05:16 PM
I guess they haven't learned their lesson yet:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/frontporch/2010/03/obamas_hamp_program_failed_mis.html

duane1969
07-07-2011, 05:17 PM
Brace yourself, I am going to defend this Obama move.

Not all mortgage companies are in the business of keeping people in their homes and the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae thing proved that nothing is gained by mortgage companies owning thousands of empty houses.

Looking at the current housing market there doesn't appear to be many people buying houses right now. Kicking out the current home owners for the house to sit empty accomplishes nothing.

There are a lot worse things that he could do than give people a chance to keep their home.

Star_Cards
07-07-2011, 05:50 PM
I would think that a mortgage company would benefit in the long run to keep people in their homes rather than toss them out and the let the homes sit empty and wait months before they are even placed on the market. I get both sides of the story because ideally one should be able to pay for their house every month. The house next to me went into foreclosure and it sat empty for about a year and just recently went on the market. The bank didn't kick the home owners out of this specific house, but I would guess this is standard for any house going through foreclosure. I'm not sure what they are selling the home for but I'd guess there is a loss of some sort that the bank will have when they eventually sell.

If you have an owner that will be a viable payer on their mortgage once they get back on their feet, in the long run the banks may be better off.

AUTaxMan
07-07-2011, 06:04 PM
The point is that you are requiring the banks to carry loans on their books that are probably going to default anyway. You are just postponing the banks ability to clearing out the inventory for an additional 8 months (since it's already 4).

Also, I can just see the campaign promises a year from now. Vote for Obama, and we'll extend the mortgage relief for the unemployed. Vote for the republicans, and you'll be kicked out of your house. Maybe that's just my tinfoil hat talking. I certainly hope so.

duane1969
07-07-2011, 06:36 PM
The point is that you are requiring the banks to carry loans on their books that are probably going to default anyway. You are just postponing the banks ability to clearing out the inventory for an additional 8 months (since it's already 4).

Also, I can just see the campaign promises a year from now. Vote for Obama, and we'll extend the mortgage relief for the unemployed. Vote for the republicans, and you'll be kicked out of your house. Maybe that's just my tinfoil hat talking. I certainly hope so.

I see your point and it is valid.

However, assuming they take back the houses, who will buy them? The housing market is dead already. Adding another 10,000 or more empty homes to the market won't help. Over-saturation will only serve to drive down real estate prices and all of those former home-owners will now have too bad of credit to buy again, in essence pulling buyers off of the market.

More houses + less buyers will not equal long-term success for the economy or housing market.

Nevermind the impact that an even weaker housing market will have on the construction business.

This is one of those subjects with no easy answer.

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 08:52 PM
I agree with Duane on his points that empty houses create a huge problem. However, i don't believe the gov't should be forcing private banks to do anything. If its a govt backed loan, maybe. But otherwise stay out of their business.

duane1969
07-07-2011, 09:14 PM
Forcing? No. Giving incentives? Yes.

How about a $2000 kickback for every home loan that is over 180 days past due that they issue a 6 month interest-free extension on?

Or how about a $1000 kickback for every loan that they refinance that is 1 year past due?

There are ways to fix the problem without kicking people out of their homes or forcing banks to do something.

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 09:26 PM
Forcing? No. Giving incentives? Yes.

How about a $2000 kickback for every home loan that is over 180 days past due that they issue a 6 month interest-free extension on?

Or how about a $1000 kickback for every loan that they refinance that is 1 year past due?

There are ways to fix the problem without kicking people out of their homes or forcing banks to do something.
I agree with you. That article appears to only deal with govt backed mortgages as well....

AUTaxMan
07-07-2011, 11:22 PM
Forcing? No. Giving incentives? Yes.

How about a $2000 kickback for every home loan that is over 180 days past due that they issue a 6 month interest-free extension on?

Or how about a $1000 kickback for every loan that they refinance that is 1 year past due?

There are ways to fix the problem without kicking people out of their homes or forcing banks to do something.

As a taxpayer, I don't want the government paying people's mortgages for them. I have a hard enough time paying my own. That is essentially what would be happening.

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 08:08 AM
I actually like this idea. Predatory lending by these banks was one of the causes of our economic woes. Now it's time for them to step up and do something to help correct the problem.

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 08:10 AM
This is one of those subjects with no easy answer.

As are most of the economic issues the country faces. As usual both POVs have their pros and cons. Again, it comes down to making the best out of a bad situation.

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 10:06 AM
I actually like this idea. Predatory lending by these banks was one of the causes of our economic woes. Now it's time for them to step up and do something to help correct the problem.
I'm wondering if they were forced alot of times into lending bad loans...hmmmm:winking0071:

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 10:11 AM
I'm wondering if they were forced alot of times into lending bad loans...hmmmm:winking0071:


Who's to say. The banks should have knew better than to loan money to people that they knew that couldn't pay.

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 10:20 AM
Who's to say. The banks should have knew better than to loan money to people that they knew that couldn't pay.
Well here's a lenders answer......
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Source(s):

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx… (http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709)
http://www.investors.com/editorial/edito… (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=306545173352598)

The only thing Bush has had to do with this is that in 2004 he (along with McCain who cosponsored the bill) and a few other congressmen tried to overhaul and regulate how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run and their financing.

The Democrats Blocked the measure:

Top 3 receivers of Fannie Mae Funds.

Chris Dodd
Barack Obama
John Kerry

It's not a coincidence

I work for Wachovia as a personal banker. The only reason a lender can decline a loan is credit, debt / income ratio or collateral.

Anything else is a against the law. I mean, you can be 97 years old, and if you meet the above three, can take out a 30 year loan.

The regulations that Clinton put it required that lenders finance homes in high risk markets or face very large fines. So, in order to make those loans, they had to relax the standards.

To tell you how much the market has changed, 3 months ago we were notified that loans were no longer a part of our goals

duane1969
07-08-2011, 10:24 AM
I'm wondering if they were forced alot of times into lending bad loans...hmmmm:winking0071:

No, but in the excitement of a hot housing market and rising economy they did make a lot of loans to people who could not afford them. They waived down payments (and applied it to the principal) and padded their high risk investment with higher interest rates. The end result was a lot of people making high payments that they could no longer afford once the economy tanked.

I think that the banks share at least some of the responsibility.

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 10:28 AM
No, but in the excitement of a hot housing market and rising economy they did make a lot of loans to people who could not afford them. They waived down payments (and applied it to the principal) and padded their high risk investment with higher interest rates. The end result was a lot of people making high payments that they could no longer afford once the economy tanked.

I think that the banks share at least some of the responsibility.
I guess forced was a bad word. How about STRONGLY encouraged with threat of a serious disadvantage......:sign0020:. The banks should share some responsiblity, but they are being villified and scapegoated on several fronts. It wasn't their idea to practice horrible business in the beginning....

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 10:28 AM
Well here's a lenders answer......
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Source(s):

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx… (http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709)
http://www.investors.com/editorial/edito… (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=306545173352598)

The only thing Bush has had to do with this is that in 2004 he (along with McCain who cosponsored the bill) and a few other congressmen tried to overhaul and regulate how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run and their financing.

The Democrats Blocked the measure:

Top 3 receivers of Fannie Mae Funds.

Chris Dodd
Barack Obama
John Kerry

It's not a coincidence

I work for Wachovia as a personal banker. The only reason a lender can decline a loan is credit, debt / income ratio or collateral.

Anything else is a against the law. I mean, you can be 97 years old, and if you meet the above three, can take out a 30 year loan.

The regulations that Clinton put it required that lenders finance homes in high risk markets or face very large fines. So, in order to make those loans, they had to relax the standards.

To tell you how much the market has changed, 3 months ago we were notified that loans were no longer a part of our goals

Even if you want to blame clinton how are the mistakes of a president who presided several years before him Obama's fault. Also your second link was broken. I'm still trying to find your source on your first link.

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 10:36 AM
Even if you want to blame clinton how are the mistakes of a president who presided several years before him Obama's fault. Also your second link was broken. I'm still trying to find your source on your first link.
It's no big secret what pushed the boulder down the hill. Obama is to blame for pinning the blame on a non truth.

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 10:40 AM
It's no big secret what pushed the boulder down the hill. Obama is to blame for pinning the blame on a non truth.

And in between the terms of clinton and obama your bff gwb had absolutely no idea what was going on in the world around him.

Star_Cards
07-08-2011, 10:54 AM
Who's to say. The banks should have knew better than to loan money to people that they knew that couldn't pay.

I agree that the loaner should know who they should and shouldn't loan to, but ultimately it's up to the buyer to know if they can afford a specific mortgage. However, with the mortgages that can't be paid for due to unemployment, no one could really have foreseen losing a job. Not the bank or the person getting the loan.

I definitely see the pros and cons of both arguments. I guess I just see it as more beneficial if people can come to terms to stay in their homes and continue paying once they get back on their feet. Although the government shouldn't force a private company to do anything they don't want to do.

duane1969
07-08-2011, 11:06 AM
I agree that the loaner should know who they should and shouldn't loan to, but ultimately it's up to the buyer to know if they can afford a specific mortgage. However, with the mortgages that can't be paid for due to unemployment, no one could really have foreseen losing a job. Not the bank or the person getting the loan.

I definitely see the pros and cons of both arguments. I guess I just see it as more beneficial if people can come to terms to stay in their homes and continue paying once they get back on their feet. Although the government shouldn't force a private company to do anything they don't want to do.

I agree that they should not as long as the private businesses understand that they get the same treatment. If they start to go under then they don't get a government bailout to help them stay afloat. Just like they watched people lose their homes and did not help, the government will stand by and watch as they lose their business and not help save it.

And after their business fails, just like happens to homeowners who default, they should have to pay anything that the sell-off of their business does not cover, their credit should be ruined for ever and they should never get to own a business again.