they are saying over 50% of the "saved" homeowners ..

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
they are saying on tv that over 50% of the rescured homeowners are back in foreclosure and askign for more help. t his is nuts!


it really does not suprise me but its sickening. this guy on tv is saying we need ot do MORE to help them out.
 

manlymatt83

Lifer
Oct 14, 2005
10,051
44
91
Why can't we just let all these companies fail? let GM fail. let chrystler fail. let the banks fail. let ford fail. let all of the people go on unemployment. let these people default on their mortgages they can't afford. then, let new companies come in and fill the voids.


whats the problem?
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
How were they "rescued" in the first place? Re-negotiations with their lenders?

Honestly, if they can't make it with re-negotiated terms...then they just shouldn't be in that house. Maybe lenders need to turn in to landlords. Collect on lowered rent, but don't reward with any equity.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,738
3,652
136
Originally posted by: waggy
they are saying on tv that over 50% of the rescured homeowners are back in foreclosure and askign for more help. t his is nuts!


it really does not suprise me but its sickening. this guy on tv is saying we need ot do MORE to help them out.

Excellent post! I'm a big fan of "they" and always get my news from "them".

I'm not sure I agree with what "this guy on TV" said though.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
We could do what people did before big government. Actually pay for what you get or lose it.
 

R Nilla

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2006
3,835
1
0
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Why can't we just let all these companies fail? let GM fail. let chrystler fail. let the banks fail. let ford fail. let all of the people go on unemployment. let these people default on their mortgages they can't afford. then, let new companies come in and fill the voids.


whats the problem?

Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!
 
Nov 7, 2000
16,403
3
81
you heartless bastard


oh, you are totally completely right, but i still get to call you a greedy selfish heartless bastard
 

rezinn

Platinum Member
Mar 30, 2004
2,418
0
0
The number is 52% IIRC. And all of these people would be in foreclosure otherwise. 48% is a lot better than 0%.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
you heartless bastard


oh, you are totally completely right, but i still get to call you a greedy selfish heartless bastard

yes i am. i want people to pay for the bills they have. i want the money I earn to stay in MY accounts. I don't want to pay for anyone else's house.



Originally posted by: rezinn
The number is 52% IIRC. And all of these people would be in foreclosure otherwise. 48% is a lot better than 0%.

question is now what? they have shown that they can't afford it. they tried to save them once. so its either more drastic measures or let them fall.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Why can't we just let all these companies fail? let GM fail. let chrystler fail. let the banks fail. let ford fail. let all of the people go on unemployment. let these people default on their mortgages they can't afford. then, let new companies come in and fill the voids.


whats the problem?
That would upset the status quo, reward those of us who have actually been responsible, and allow those in the lower tiers of society to have a chance to get ahead. This can't be allowed to happen because, as stated in 1984, those in power need to keep it to prevent becoming part of the middle class again.
 

AreaCode7O7

Senior member
Mar 6, 2005
931
1
0
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Why can't we just let all these companies fail? let GM fail. let chrystler fail. let the banks fail. let ford fail. let all of the people go on unemployment. let these people default on their mortgages they can't afford. then, let new companies come in and fill the voids.


whats the problem?

Yep, let them go through foreclosure. Have them declare bankruptcy. It's not the end of the world, just means you mostly have to live off your income instead of credit for 7 or so years. Looking at many of the people in this situation, that's exactly the skill they need to learn to be successful with their money in the future. It would also prevent them from continuing to jeopardize the economy with more poorly-utilized credit and loans.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,738
3,652
136
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
you heartless bastard


oh, you are totally completely right, but i still get to call you a greedy selfish heartless bastard

yes i am. i want people to pay for the bills they have. i want the money I earn to stay in MY accounts. I don't want to pay for anyone else's house.



Originally posted by: rezinn
The number is 52% IIRC. And all of these people would be in foreclosure otherwise. 48% is a lot better than 0%.

question is now what? they have shown that they can't afford it. they tried to save them once. so its either more drastic measures or let them fall.

So have you found, like, actual sources yet?

I googled "this guy on tv" and got nothing.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
71,298
30,841
136
The problem with the borrowers, the lenders, the investors who bought the mortgages, and the bailoutists is that they are all working with the same fantasy number. They are all trying like mad to pretend that these houses are worth the price paid. The value simply isn't there to recover. That's why we call these things bubbles. Each party wants to pretend that the piece of paper they hold is worth face value. It isn't. So they come up with refinancing schemes to avoid writing down their own piece of paper that might work in a stable or growing economy but with a recession is full swing the borrower won't be able to pay. Evicting the borrower doesn't help the lender because the lender would have to try to sell the house, forcing the writedown. So another round of "let's pretend" is in the cards, allowing all involved to continue their paper fantasies.
 

Rumpltzer

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2003
4,815
33
91
Originally posted by: Turin39789
Hi! I want to buy a house. Let the prices fall.
I'm in California. I've been waiting for this for at least 4 years now (and it seemed pretty obvious to me that it was coming). I'll give it at least another 2 years.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,648
4,162
126
1) Like someone said above, going from 0% success rate to 50% success rate is pretty good. Not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.

2) Since most of the data that has come in so far is from old-style changes, we are getting the worst first. What I mean is that they used to try to help a mortgage by moving a payment from now until the end of the term. That certainly can help a bit. If you owe a few thousand dollars and can't seem to get your head above water, that is great. But, nothing fundamental has changed - you still are stuck owing more on a house than it is worth and you still owe monthly payments that you can't afford. The first mortgage revisions were doomed since they never addressed the real problems. People who scrimp and save may be helped by delaying a few thousand dollar payment. But, if they blew any of that money, they are right back where they started. Nothing was done to address that very likely outcome.

3) What we really need is to: (A) Foreclose on people who never have a chance - screw them as they are lost causes. A foreclosure moratorium does nothing for these people, so why waste time and money on it. (B) Give meaningful changes to the rest. This means making payments affordable, and NOT just moving payments around. (C) Put an incentive in the game for the homeowners. As it is, you get a little slap-on-the-wrist ding to your credit score and move on after a foreclosure. Heck, the government even temporarilly gave you a tax BREAK for foreclosing this year. WE need the opposite. We need people to have financial incentives to NOT foreclose. Tax the heck out of them (the "income" from debt forgiveness) if they do foreclose and take that money and use it as a carrot for those people who do pay off their house properly. You won't collect much right away since these people have nothing, but you can collect over time.
 

amicold

Platinum Member
Feb 7, 2005
2,656
1
81
Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Why can't we just let all these companies fail? let GM fail. let chrystler fail. let the banks fail. let ford fail. let all of the people go on unemployment. let these people default on their mortgages they can't afford. then, let new companies come in and fill the voids.


whats the problem?

I'd imagine letting the B3 fail wouldn't allow for new companies to just pull all this money out of their asses when so much of the economy is still dependent on the B3. Though I will say that homeowners can go fvck themselves as far as being bailed out.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
It is pitiful that so soon they're back sucking ass. And this was on the news yesterday. It's not terribly surprising, you give a crack head money for clothes for his job interview and he'll just spend it on crack. He cannot help it.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Posted this in P&N, but I'd be interested to know what terms were modified and how much they really helped homeowners. I wouldn't be surprised if the banks just did enough to buy the homeowners a few months on the hope that by then a government bailout program would have been created for people in danger of defaulting.

Also, here's a source.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081208/financial_meltdown.html
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,770
3,166
136
the problem as i see it is that the only homeowners being "saved" are those already in default. the mortgage companies should be working to prevent foreclosures by easing the burden for those who have a solid payment history but are facing potential problems due to the current unemployment numbers and economic crisis.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: dullard
1) Like someone said above, going from 0% success rate to 50% success rate is pretty good. Not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.

2) Since most of the data that has come in so far is from old-style changes, we are getting the worst first. What I mean is that they used to try to help a mortgage by moving a payment from now until the end of the term. That certainly can help a bit. If you owe a few thousand dollars and can't seem to get your head above water, that is great. But, nothing fundamental has changed - you still are stuck owing more on a house than it is worth and you still owe monthly payments that you can't afford. The first mortgage revisions were doomed since they never addressed the real problems. People who scrimp and save may be helped by delaying a few thousand dollar payment. But, if they blew any of that money, they are right back where they started. Nothing was done to address that very likely outcome.

3) What we really need is to: (A) Foreclose on people who never have a chance - screw them as they are lost causes. A foreclosure moratorium does nothing for these people, so why waste time and money on it. (B) Give meaningful changes to the rest. This means making payments affordable, and NOT just moving payments around. (C) Put an incentive in the game for the homeowners. As it is, you get a little slap-on-the-wrist ding to your credit score and move on after a foreclosure. Heck, the government even temporarilly gave you a tax BREAK for foreclosing this year. WE need the opposite. We need people to have financial incentives to NOT foreclose. Tax the heck out of them (the "income" from debt forgiveness) if they do foreclose and take that money and use it as a carrot for those people who do pay off their house properly. You won't collect much right away since these people have nothing, but you can collect over time.

i can agree with 3) we can see that its nto working. maybe something else needs to be done.

 

Noirish

Diamond Member
May 2, 2000
3,959
0
0
do whatever you want, the govt will always bail you out.
god bless america.

seriously, we need the home price to fall all the way back to what it was before all the boom because it's totally undeserving.