Obama considering prohibiting ALL foreclosures without gov review.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahuuwBS8KYq8

The Obama administration may expand efforts to ease the housing crisis by banning all foreclosures on home loans unless they have been screened and rejected by the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program.

Talk about desperate, damn!

This is merely a proposal but it is a legitimate line of consideration.

So in answer to the question: how much damn help are these people going to get? This kind of approaches a final answer.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
This is just absolute lunacy and stupidity. Foreclosures are but a symptom. You have to address the cause, not the symptom.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
It's an election year and an important one for the Dem's. Expect the stops to be pulled out far beyond normal comprehension this year. The people must be made to forget.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Gee, can't imagine why banks aren't making new loans. Surely it has nothing to do with government interference.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Do not agree with. Once the government gets in your business, its impossible to get them out again.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Future agenda items to make illegal:
-Firing workers
-Not hiring workers
-Paying a minimum wage less then $25/hr
-Making a profit

Did you know that the first Obama term was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
It's an election year and an important one for the Dem's. Expect the stops to be pulled out far beyond normal comprehension this year. The people must be made to forget.

Just like his other housing assistance plans... if you live in a district whose democratic congressman is facing a tough fight to keep it... expect the money from the government to roll into those districts.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,299
740
126
You stupid Americans you don't even know if you can pay for your house or not. From now on I will tell you if you have enough money or not.

-BHO
 
Last edited:
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
This would be absolutely foolish. No houses would be forclosed upon. The courts have enough foreclosures for 250 years in California at the current pace-- and he wants to add to this. Hey why don't we just give everybody a free house.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,464
33,079
136
Reading the article it looks like a throw away proposal tossed into the discussion in attempt to knock the bankers off the dime and get busy with writing down the mortgages they hinted they would when the bailout was being debated.
 

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,420
2
81
A government review of foreclosures? What's there to review? Oh that the mortgagor got into a retarded 5/1 ARM and didn't realize exactly how much they'd have to pay on that house (factoring in the interest AND the principal)?

I suppose that's how he could create jobs. He'll hire a full staff just to "review" foreclosures and hire a "foreclosure czar", and pay these idiots to prohibit foreclosures and throw the bill at people who make their house payments.

BAHAHAHAHA
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
A government review of foreclosures? What's there to review? Oh that the mortgagor got into a retarded 5/1 ARM and didn't realize exactly how much they'd have to pay on that house (factoring in the interest AND the principal)?

I suppose that's how he could create jobs. He'll hire a full staff just to "review" foreclosures and hire a "foreclosure czar", and pay these idiots to prohibit foreclosures and throw the bill at people who make their house payments.

BAHAHAHAHA

There was a bill passed (I think it was part of ARRA) to help homeowners who were in trouble of foreclosure to force the bank to rework their mortgages at lower rates to make their payments lower. The problem was the process to get this done was very complicated with all the government forms and other paperwork from the owner.

This idea is just forcing the bank to do what was already offered. Also there was some stat that the people that DID take advantage of this program were back to being 2-3 months behind in short order. They simply could not afford the house on their income and forcing a bank to bend over backwards to people who have the personal financial intelligence of a jellyfish is not the answer.

But Obama gonna pay ma mortgage anyway.

-edit-
From the article it's the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) which has been a collosal failure.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
The US economy is a like a group of people who think they can fly because each one is holding up the person next to them.

It reminds of old cartoons where a character builds a stairway by pulling out the bottom stair and putting it on top and eventually finds themselves in the clouds. Once they realize their mistake they crater back to earth.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
This is bad not just because it's a drain on the taxpayers, but because a sensible person holding a $300k loan on a house devalued to $150k might want to foreclose to avoid paying the ridiculous inflated price, even if he's not underwater on his payments. This will in fact force such people to continue overpaying for their house, screwing over the person and benefiting the bank.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
This is bad not just because it's a drain on the taxpayers, but because a sensible person holding a $300k loan on a house devalued to $150k might want to foreclose to avoid paying the ridiculous inflated price, even if he's not underwater on his payments. This will in fact force such people to continue overpaying for their house, screwing over the person and benefiting the bank.

How is having a person pay the premium on the risk they took 'screwing them over'?

If I borrow $300,000 and invest in a stock, and it goes does to $150,000, should I just be able to walk away?