More Government Housing Shenanigans

[CycloWizard]

I'd rather have seen the US Government buy up all the "distressed mortgages" and forgive them than to have them bail out the banks who caused the mess in the first place.
Not necessarily the "main street banks" who were loaning money to anyone with a pulse, but rather, those who were gambling on the credit default swaps, those who were buying mortgages like crazy, even though they really weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

Bailing out the American citizen who was/is struggling to make ends meet in this FUBAR'd economy makes more sense than bailing out the banks who continue raking in huge profits and paying outlandish bonuses to the very people who caused this in the first place with their "funny money" schemes.

It's easy to point fingers at people who bought houses at inflated prices...but MANY of those people could afford their mortgages when they bought...but may have been suckered in by the promise of low mortgage rates in adjustable mortgages...and the promise that they'd only go down...not up. Then, once the bubble popped, people started losing their jobs left and right...folks whose jobs were based around construction, in the multitude of related industries; building materials, home furnishings, home renovation materials and supplies, appliances, auto sales, cities and counties who started seeing huge drops in property tax collections...the list goes on and on...

Is it their fault that the economy went to shit? Hell no. Should they be "helped to keep their houses?"
That's debatable, but it serves NO ONE if everyone loses their houses and they sit empty.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Stop bailing out the rich and start bailing out the working class.

There are tons of people involved in buying a house, but four parties are primarily involved: the buyer, the seller, the lender, and the title agency. Each party has a job to do and is responsible for making sure its interests are covered throughout. If I am signing a contract and I don't read through it, whose fault is that? I've just gone through this and read every contract along the way. If I didn't understand something, I asked. But before I started the process, I calculated how much I could afford to sell for (and buy for on the other end). It's called a budget. If you gamble on an ARM, you're deciding to take the risk that your rate will go up before you get out of the house. Period. If the buyer didn't understand that and signed the paperwork, whose fault is it? It's no different than buying stock, which is inherently a gamble that the price will go up over time. What if it doesn't? Should the government bail you out for making a bad investment decision?

 

[spidey07]

When you reward or incent stupid behavior or decisions don't be surprised if you see more of it.

Op. Drop your wage that little bit to comply. You'll come out ahead by doing so.

31% of gross for mortgage? What kind of stupid fuck does that? And lol at blaming the bank for stupid consumer.

 

[BoomerD]

There are tons of people involved in buying a house, but four parties are primarily involved: the buyer, the seller, the lender, and the title agency. Each party has a job to do and is responsible for making sure its interests are covered throughout. If I am signing a contract and I don't read through it, whose fault is that? I've just gone through this and read every contract along the way. If I didn't understand something, I asked. But before I started the process, I calculated how much I could afford to sell for (and buy for on the other end). It's called a budget. If you gamble on an ARM, you're deciding to take the risk that your rate will go up before you get out of the house. Period. If the buyer didn't understand that and signed the paperwork, whose fault is it? It's no different than buying stock, which is inherently a gamble that the price will go up over time. What if it doesn't? Should the government bail you out for making a bad investment decision?

I'm not necessarily defending the practice...but merely saying I'd rather see the government bail out the citizens who have gotten fucked by the bad economy rather than the banks who took huge risks and lost.
Are they not to be held responsible for their choices as well?

We seem to believe in "privatize gains and privatize losses."

 

[fskimospy]

I don't really get why this argument is even being had. People seem to be worried about whether or not this policy is fair to people when that's really totally irrelevant. The US housing market is currently in the shitter. Everyone is better off if we get it out of the shitter. That's going to mean government action at this point, as the private sector hasn't been able to make up for its massive failure on its own. (contrary to popular sentiment on this board, the government didn't cause either the huge subprime distortion or the housing crash.)

Life isn't fair. We do what we need to do in order to set the country right. If it didn't work out wonderfully for you, that's just life... suck it up.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm not necessarily defending the practice...but merely saying I'd rather see the government bail out the citizens who have gotten fucked by the bad economy rather than the banks who took huge risks and lost.
Are they not to be held responsible for their choices as well?

We seem to believe in "privatize gains and privatize losses."

I absolutely agree.

 

[spidey07]

I don't really get why this argument is even being had. People seem to be worried about whether or not this policy is fair to people when that's really totally irrelevant. The US housing market is currently in the shitter. Everyone is better off if we get it out of the shitter. That's going to mean government action at this point, as the private sector hasn't been able to make up for its massive failure on its own. (contrary to popular sentiment on this board, the government didn't cause either the huge subprime distortion or the housing crash.)

Life isn't fair. We do what we need to do in order to set the country right. If it didn't work out wonderfully for you, that's just life... suck it up.

Your fine with everybody else suffering as long as it isn't you for your wise chives.

Welcome to the republican party. Make your donation today.

 

[IGBT]

you can bet ACORN or one of their social justice racket fronts are behind this and similar. All funded by your taxes.

 

[Lithium381]

Actually, Person A was just a run of the mill person who thought themselves to be a good conservative, had a good job, and believed the current Repub hero, GWB, about the wonders of the Ownership Society. They borrowed right at the limit of what they could afford from people trained to gain their trust, then lost their job and got screwed along with millions of others in the greatest financial flimflam since the stock market scam of the 1920's.

But don't let anything like that get in the way of smug self righteousness & denial...It could have been you, and if your Repub heroes have their way, it will be.

You're still not allowing the homeowner to take any blame for their incompetent decisions. I'm not taking blame away from some banks that weren't working for the clients best interest, but you're not allowing that people made bad decisions.

Explain to me how, then, I managed to get a mortgage for a house that was within my budget? I was offered up to 400k based on my income and credit. I crunched numbers and ended up with a much smaller house that cost less than half of that. Why? Because I realized that i couldn't afford a full 400k mortgage. How is it that I've been 100% on time for my payments? For the past three years? Because I thought about it for more than 2 seconds, didn't get caught up in the emotion of buying a house and got something I could afford. Who takes credit for that? The bank or me? Who takes credit for me having a 6 month savings in case of emergencies?

 

[TheSlamma]

I blame both. I recon none of those homeowners had their hand twisted to accept those deals.

I second this.. combined with the HELOC's for everyone under the sun program too.

 

[CycloWizard]

You're still not allowing the homeowner to take any blame for their incompetent decisions. I'm not taking blame away from some banks that weren't working for the clients best interest, but you're not allowing that people made bad decisions.

Explain to me how, then, I managed to get a mortgage for a house that was within my budget? I was offered up to 400k based on my income and credit. I crunched numbers and ended up with a much smaller house that cost less than half of that. Why? Because I realized that i couldn't afford a full 400k mortgage. How is it that I've been 100% on time for my payments? For the past three years? Because I thought about it for more than 2 seconds, didn't get caught up in the emotion of buying a house and got something I could afford. Who takes credit for that? The bank or me? Who takes credit for me having a 6 month savings in case of emergencies?

I hope you're happy with your decision to take the money you planned on saving to pay for those who bought huge houses they couldn't afford. It's the new American Dream!

 

[spidey07]

I hope you're happy with your decision to take the money you planned on saving to pay for those who bought huge houses they couldn't afford. It's the new American Dream!

I say the responsible folks are pissed off to be pay for the poor decisions of others. It's our bull getting gored now and were pissed.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're still not allowing the homeowner to take any blame for their incompetent decisions. I'm not taking blame away from some banks that weren't working for the clients best interest, but you're not allowing that people made bad decisions.

Explain to me how, then, I managed to get a mortgage for a house that was within my budget? I was offered up to 400k based on my income and credit. I crunched numbers and ended up with a much smaller house that cost less than half of that. Why? Because I realized that i couldn't afford a full 400k mortgage. How is it that I've been 100% on time for my payments? For the past three years? Because I thought about it for more than 2 seconds, didn't get caught up in the emotion of buying a house and got something I could afford. Who takes credit for that? The bank or me? Who takes credit for me having a 6 month savings in case of emergencies?

Just because, by definition, half the population has below average intelligence doesn't mean they deserve to get screwed. In allowing that, cheering it on, we invite the same for ourselves, because there's always somebody smarter than we are.

Whenever threads like this pop up, the usual ravers act like they're jealous of people who need assistance & actually get it, like those people are worthless rather than unlucky & too trusting of authority, of the people & ideas they believe in. When GWB, Greenspan & the whole galaxy of right wing pundits touted the ownership society, they were believed, & regular, seemingly sensible people acted on what they believed to be true.

Bad choice? Obviously, but that doesn't change the fact that punishing them solves nothing. We're still on the brink of financial catastrophe, and pushing more people over the edge just increases the chances of the rest of us, other than the super rich, of being dragged along for the ride.

 

[her209]

I say the responsible folks are pissed off to be pay for the poor decisions of others. It's our bull getting gored now and were pissed.

Where were these responsible folks when it was their bulls being fattened up and they were gaining from the poor decision of others?

 

[piasabird]

Anyone who recently purchased a house probably owes more than it is worth. It is a joke. Besides, for taxes they always say your house is worth more.

Anytime the government helps homeowners they are just artificially raising the value of all the other houses. The whole concept is stupid.

 

[CycloWizard]

Just because, by definition, half the population has below average intelligence doesn't mean they deserve to get screwed. In allowing that, cheering it on, we invite the same for ourselves, because there's always somebody smarter than we are.

Whenever threads like this pop up, the usual ravers act like they're jealous of people who need assistance & actually get it, like those people are worthless rather than unlucky & too trusting of authority, of the people & ideas they believe in. When GWB, Greenspan & the whole galaxy of right wing pundits touted the ownership society, they were believed, & regular, seemingly sensible people acted on what they believed to be true.

Bad choice? Obviously, but that doesn't change the fact that punishing them solves nothing. We're still on the brink of financial catastrophe, and pushing more people over the edge just increases the chances of the rest of us, other than the super rich, of being dragged along for the ride.

I'm hardly jealous of the people who are getting assistance from these programs. I'm simply pissed that money is going from my pocket to the pocket of someone else simply because I acted responsibly and they did not. You're not punishing them by not giving them my money - they are simply reaping the consequences of their conscious decision to buy a house they could not afford. On the other hand, you're punishing me when you do give it to them. I pay more for future homes in addition to keeping the irresponsible people in homes that they can't afford simply because they can't afford them.

 

[CycloWizard]

Where were these responsible folks when it was their bulls being fattened up and they were gaining from the poor decision of others?

Is it irresponsible to engage in shrewd financial transactions? Is it illegal or unethical to profit from these transactions? I waited to buy a house because it was clear that the prices didn't reflect what the home was actually worth to me. I wasn't going to spend $250k on a three bedroom shanty that was about to fall over. The people who bought a house for more than what it was worth to them are the people out in the cold now. They bought because they thought they could make a quick buck, just like people make poor gambles on the stock market and lose a lot of money. The difference is that people in the stock market aren't gambling with their homes - they're gambling with what they can afford to gamble. I don't go to the casino and bet my house on red unless I'm an idiot, but that's what these people did. Damn the government for telling them there are no black numbers on the roulette wheel, and the banks for loaning more than the people could realistically afford to lose, but why do I get stuck paying for all of their gambling losses when I wasn't even at the table?

 

[1prophet]

Where were these responsible folks when it was their bulls being fattened up and they were gaining from the poor decision of others?

Money up front is like crack, many can get addicted to the immediate payoff from signing off on a loan without consideration of the long term effects.

Eventually the responsible people become the odd man out because everyone is doing it.

http://www.seattlemet.com/issues/archives/articles/indecentappraisal0109/1/?print=1

 

[Lithium381]

Bad choice? Obviously, but that doesn't change the fact that punishing them solves nothing. We're still on the brink of financial catastrophe, and pushing more people over the edge just increases the chances of the rest of us, other than the super rich, of being dragged along for the ride.

punishing them? how so? should I get a refund for all of my lotto tickets that didn't pay(that'd be 100% of them)??? simply because i took a chance and lost? you're not talking about NOT PUNISHING them, you're talking about REWARDING them.....

I'd be inclined to give these people extensions on their mortage or adjust their terms so it's more affordable on a month to month basis, but i'm not for forgiving a penny on their loans. They agreed to pay for it, and they should. It's called personal responsibility, who has it around here?

 

[Lithium381]

Is it irresponsible to engage in shrewd financial transactions? Is it illegal or unethical to profit from these transactions? I waited to buy a house because it was clear that the prices didn't reflect what the home was actually worth to me. I wasn't going to spend $250k on a three bedroom shanty that was about to fall over. The people who bought a house for more than what it was worth to them are the people out in the cold now. They bought because they thought they could make a quick buck, just like people make poor gambles on the stock market and lose a lot of money. The difference is that people in the stock market aren't gambling with their homes - they're gambling with what they can afford to gamble. I don't go to the casino and bet my house on red unless I'm an idiot, but that's what these people did. Damn the government for telling them there are no black numbers on the roulette wheel, and the banks for loaning more than the people could realistically afford to lose, but why do I get stuck paying for all of their gambling losses when I wasn't even at the table?

awesome analogy!

 

[HendrixFan]

I don't go to the casino and bet my house on red unless I'm an idiot, but that's what these people did. Damn the government for telling them there are no black numbers on the roulette wheel, and the banks for loaning more than the people could realistically afford to lose, but why do I get stuck paying for all of their gambling losses when I wasn't even at the table?

At a casino you know what you are getting into.

Banks have (since the New Deal efforts) been seen as stalwarts of stability. If someone is willing to loan you hundreds of thousands of dollars and tell you that you can manage the payments, and even show you payments that you can manage, why would you assume differently? Keep in mind, not everyone is above average in intelligence. When a bank cons someone into a loan, it is completely different than a casino taking a bet.

What the banks did during the housing boom was largely illegal. That there should say enough to dispute your rant. We gave the banks amnesty in addition to the bailout funds, so there will be little to no repercussions for their actions. Don't confuse that with being "shrewd". Conning the economy out of trillions of dollars is the opposite of shrewd.

 

[her209]

Is it irresponsible to engage in shrewd financial transactions? Is it illegal or unethical to profit from these transactions? I waited to buy a house because it was clear that the prices didn't reflect what the home was actually worth to me. I wasn't going to spend $250k on a three bedroom shanty that was about to fall over. The people who bought a house for more than what it was worth to them are the people out in the cold now. They bought because they thought they could make a quick buck, just like people make poor gambles on the stock market and lose a lot of money. The difference is that people in the stock market aren't gambling with their homes - they're gambling with what they can afford to gamble. I don't go to the casino and bet my house on red unless I'm an idiot, but that's what these people did. Damn the government for telling them there are no black numbers on the roulette wheel, and the banks for loaning more than the people could realistically afford to lose, but why do I get stuck paying for all of their gambling losses when I wasn't even at the table?

I'm talking about the homeowners who bought way before the bubble started. They saw their home values double and triple from their purchase price due to the government and banks encouraging anyone with a heartbeat to buy a home. Where were these people screaming "Please make my house value stop going up!" The only people who were complaining about the ridiculous home prices were the people were waiting like you and me.

 

[soulcougher73]

Hoodwinked how? Hey this mortgage is 30% of my income, and I have no savings in case I lose my job, and I only have 2% equity. But the guy in the suit says it's a good idea so I must buy this house.

Where is personal responsibility?

Exactly. Where is the personal responisibility of the guy in the suit and the bank that lended this money with more knowledge of financial situations then your average joe would have? Bankers took advantage of people and loaned them money they would not have done so 20 years ago.

Both sides are to blame. You just like to paint it all on one side when its the bankers who caused this in the first place.

 

[Argo]

Exactly. Where is the personal responisibility of the guy in the suit and the bank that lended this money with more knowledge of financial situations then your average joe would have? Bankers took advantage of people and loaned them money they would not have done so 20 years ago.

Both sides are to blame. You just like to paint it all on one side when its the bankers who caused this in the first place.

You took my post out of context. I am not saying that banks are not to blame, I am just responding the the guy above me who claimed that *ONLY* banks are to blame.

 

[CycloWizard]

At a casino you know what you are getting into.

Banks have (since the New Deal efforts) been seen as stalwarts of stability. If someone is willing to loan you hundreds of thousands of dollars and tell you that you can manage the payments, and even show you payments that you can manage, why would you assume differently? Keep in mind, not everyone is above average in intelligence. When a bank cons someone into a loan, it is completely different than a casino taking a bet.

What the banks did during the housing boom was largely illegal. That there should say enough to dispute your rant. We gave the banks amnesty in addition to the bailout funds, so there will be little to no repercussions for their actions. Don't confuse that with being "shrewd". Conning the economy out of trillions of dollars is the opposite of shrewd.

So these people are below-average intelligence and are therefore free from any personal responsibility for their actions? What happened to "let the buyer beware?" If these people buy a lemon from a used car dealer, are we going to bail them out? The problem is that these people wanted huge houses that they clearly couldn't afford. Banks were stupid for giving it to them - no one has disputed that, nor do I agree with the policy of bailing out the banks for their own failures - but that does not alleviate the fault of the buyers who took the loans. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, and it takes two to tango. Did I miss any cliches that clearly address your concerns?

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm talking about the homeowners who bought way before the bubble started. They saw their home values double and triple from their purchase price due to the government and banks encouraging anyone with a heartbeat to buy a home. Where were these people screaming "Please make my house value stop going up!" The only people who were complaining about the ridiculous home prices were the people were waiting like you and me.

I can only assume that your post is in jest, otherwise my head will probably explode.