BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions

Subject: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 03:13 PM

The other night on television they showed homes that had been foreclosed on being brutally emptied of everything, with furniture, pictures, strollers, everything, being thrown onto big trucks that would haul all these things to the dumps and landfills.

The premise of the banks, they said, is that as soon as foreclosure has been ordered they want the house to be emptied and ready to be put back on the market, no matter what is sacrificed.

My question: Wouldn't they - not to mention the defaulting owners - be better off if the banks worked with the owners on a plan to catch up with their debts so that the banks wouldn't have to take them back? Surely adding another house to a slumping market isn't helping anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 04:36 PM

At the end of the day there will be a lot more houses available to buy on the open market... and of course some to rent.. so... we should expect the prices of houses and renting to continue to drop significantly in future....... I agree with you Ebbie. it would help keep the housing market at least a little more steady.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 04:52 PM

So people are stripped not only of their homes but all their personal possessions as well? So not only do they have nowhere to live, they lack the basic articles necessary to making a life - never mind sentimental items of no commercial value such as wedding photos and childrens' scrapbooks? Is that legal? I should think it could be challengeable in the EU court of human rights. Is my horrible mental picture of people standing in the street with only the clothes on their backs exaggerated? (Please tell me it is, that I've got it wrong...)

Wasn't it the banks who got us into that mess in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 05:07 PM

I didn't see the news segment you saw, Ebbie, but I expect that there were a number of steps taken before the trucks showed up.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 05:09 PM

Usually there is time enough to empty your house out your self when you 1st get a notice but many people think that it won't happen or where are they gonna put the stuff even if they had the tiime.

I know CitiCorp, who got the largest slice of the last TARP money has just started to try to help home owners in trouble but with all the qualifications it seems as if few will be able to take advantage of it. This is what the money was for & hopefully Obama will see that this is part of the new deal/package that he's got a hand in. As it is the banks that got the money are either sitting on the money, reivesting it to buy up smaller banks in worst trouble or just aren't flat out not leanding to anyone except other banks at an inflated cost/rate.
IMHO, if they don't start helping out the homeowners that all the TARP money in the world won't save us from spiriling into a depression. The ression is now feeding itself from within a vicious cycle. If the money package doesn't get passed soon by Congress with a large share going to help Main St then they might as well save it to burn in the fireplace

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 07:52 PM

US foreclosure law has a number of specific requirements that should preclude the kind of situations shown in the TV show. Individual states can modify some of the rules, but they're reasonably consistent.

A foreclosure generally requires that you be several payments delinquent on the mortgage, and generally can't (or at least won't) be started until the mortgage holder can show that you are at least three months behind.

After you are notified of the foreclosure you generally have a prescribed time in which to protest the foreclosure itself, with about 30 days being the minimum I've heard of.

After the thirty days has elapsed, if you have not filed a protest (or appealed a denial of one) you generally have 30 days before a warrant can be issued, ordering the local law enforcement agency to "vacate the premises."

Thus, on average, you have at least five months after being notified that you (may) have to vacate, although there is probably some local variation.

If it's necessary for the sheriff to show up and remove your belongings, it indicates a total lack of planning on your part.

That does NOT MEAN that sympathy for the "victim" is not merited, as one who can't pay the mortgage quite likely has few resources with which to find a new place to live and to arrange to move possessions. For many people, the planning may appear - and may actually be - impossible; but at least here it's not just a matter of an unexpected knock on the door and throwing all your stuff in the street.

In the case of a foreclosure alone, the person may be left with no place to live, no place to put possessions being hauled off, and still owing any balance of the mortgage not recovered by the mortgage holder.

A filing for bankruptcy can relieve the person of the "rest of the mortgage" but also permits debtors in general to claim personal property, savings, and any other "valuables" that might help in recovery of what has been lent by any creditor; so it can be almost as devastating as allowing the stuff to be hauled to the dump.

The Federal Bankruptcy law prescribes a few things that are "exempt" and that a person may keep in a bankruptcy; but it specifically allows the states to write their own rules - in place of rather than in addition to - the Federal regulations, so there probably is even more variation depending on where you live than for the simple foreclosure.

Note: IANAL, but this is a subject that's been much in the news lately. The above is mostly from what has been reported by the media, but shouldn't be relied on for solving personal difficulties.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 07:58 PM

Doesn't make much sense in a falling market - they are going to have to sell the house for less anyway after repossessing

I think there ought always be an option for the local council to take over, either take over the mortage, or pay the bank what the current (reduced) value is, and offer to keep the residents on as tenants.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 08:10 PM

JohninKansas: "A filing for bankruptcy can relieve the person of the "rest of the mortgage" but also permits debtors in general to claim personal property, savings, and any other "valuables" that might help in recovery of what has been lent by any creditor; so it can be almost as devastating as allowing the stuff to be hauled to the dump."

I wonder if that's what happened in the case of what I saw on tv? I wish I had made note of where I saw it. I didn't see it from the beginning; it was well underway.

The voiceover said that in some cases obviously 'good' or expensive items are saved and sold separately but that by far most of it is just tossed in the truck, that speed and emptying are of the essence. He said that the workers said it was the third house they had emptied that day.

While I watched I saw several pieces broken upon impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 08:13 PM

that speed and emptying are of the essence

And then the houses stand empty for months because nobody is buying at the price they want...

With luck squatters will move in.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 08:28 PM

The purpose of news programing now days seems to be to make the listener (or viewer) angry and upset . Conveying the Truth or giving a balanced perspective seem to be casualties of this process.

If you are watching a news show concerning a specific event, such as "police raid drug house at 24 Elm", the news people are obligated to show film of that exact house and that specific police incident.

On the other hand, if the TV station is doing a "feature" segmnent about the "housing crisis" in general, they are probably entitled to use archival footage to illustrate their intended points.

In other words, that house seen on the TV news may have been cleared of squatters and done by police on order of the court, rather than an "unfair eviction by the greedy bankers". They may have felt it did a good job of illustrating the point they wanted to make. Or just make you angry. You can't tell which.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 08:35 PM

Actually, many times the house does not sit for long.

The bank is not really in the real estate business, so they simply auction the house off for what they can get, with the remaining balance still being owed by the person evicted.

Then when the person files bankruptcy, the debt gets reduced or discharged and the bank writes it off as a loss.

Of course sometimes the bank is the winning bidder at the auction, so the above still holds true, but then they own the house at the reduced value and sit on it til the market comes back up.

Any way you slice it, the bank will get their money, either directly or through tax writeoff. The newly homeless person is the only one who is going to lose.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 08:35 PM

A mistyping in my previous post - "five months after being notified" - should have said "five months after being unable to make the payments."

The modifying of the mortgage is an issue much in contention among the banks. One of the first few banks to receive bailout money has agreed to allow the courts to make changes to the mortgages, although the exact kinds of changes that are permissible are not clearly defined; but the remaining banks have pretty much formed up lynch mobs in protest, and are very strenuously resisting.

Some special rules have been imposed/applied for loans that are FHA backed, but they don't apply to the majority of the "failed loans."

A particularly nasty part of the whole mess is that with mortgages being bought and sold between banks, and/or "bundled" into mortgage/investment packages that may include mortgages "owned" by many different banks, it often is literally impossible for many people (or even for those collecting the payments) to determine who actually owns the mortgage and has the authority to agree to changes. And with the "bundling agreements" even the one who owns the mortgage may be required to get agreement from multiple (sometimes thousands of?) other people before "adjustments" can legally be made.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 09:28 PM

While I sympathise with the plight of foreclosed homeowners, I don't see any logical reason to believe the video footage would have shown anything but the removal of abandoned belongings.

My wife used to do between-tenant cleanups for a couple of property rental agencies. Sometimes I'd help her out on some of the tougher jobs. The amount of stuff people intentionally leave behind when they move out can be astounding. Most of it's junk, but some of it's good stuff. Almost everything in our kitchen is something some renter left behind when he moved out.

Would you expect a foreclosed homeowner to behave much differently? Would you expect him to make the effort to haul all his unwanted household belongings to the dump himself? Why? All he has to do is leave them behind and the bank will do it for free. If I were in their shoes, it's exactly what I'd do. I'd take what's important, sell what I could at a yard sale, and what's left would be somebody else's problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 09:48 PM

Of course, the larger problem the foreclosed homeowner has is, he has no place to put anything and no money to store it. Leaving things behind is probably his/her only option.

                     In the case of illegal aliens who are going through foreclosure, they would have to haul all of that stuff back to where ever it was they came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 10:07 PM

This was the second year that I know of (and I'm told the third) that my neighbor has been in foreclosure. It appears that he times it so that the foreclosure protocols start in September, and he than has until (roughly) the end of January to pay up or face an auction. There is usually just one person in the house during the winter. Then, as auction time draws near, he gets the auction postponed and then canceled -- I suspect that he pays off the arrears.

During the time he is in foreclosure there is nothing (not the boat, not the 5th wheel trailer, not the golf cart, not the jet skis, not the dirt bikes -- nothing) removed from the house.

Also, more than few houses that go through complete foreclosure have the former owners trash the inside. Walls are broken through, lights smashed, plumbing removed -- the whole anger thing. There is nothing the banks can do about this, as when it is done it is still the property of the former owner and you can pretty much do what you want inside your own house.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 10:55 PM

If it is obvious that the damage was done intentionally, the bank can file criminal charges.

The house is not truly owned by you until it is paid off.

Mortgage contracts include provisions that the property is to be kept up and insured through the term of the contract.

Intentional damage is vandalism and is a criminal offense.

All those costs are added to the debt and are still the responsibility of the original debtor.

The bank will get their money one way or another.

By the way, in many states, criminal damages cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.

I have seen several news shows about the subject first brought up. It is a big business. People get a contract from the bank to clear these houses of the abandoned property, then they hire temp workers or homeless people for the labor.

One of the shows interviewed a guy who was working for the same company that cleared his house. He doesn't care for the work, but he has to do something for money, and they pay cash.

Most of the time it is just abandoned trash, but there are a lot of elderly and disabled people who simply have nowhere else to go, and they just get put out on the street.

It is a HUGE problem that is getting bigger, but I'm sure if we just give some more tax breaks to the people with all the money, the problem will just go away, right?

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 03:57 AM

In either a foreclosure or a bankruptcy, or in the common case where they're done together, even having a garage sale can subject the debtor to charges of fraud or malfeasance.

The mortgage holder, in foreclosure, and all persons to whom you owe debts in bankruptcy generally are "entitled" to take any assets you have, with very limited exceptions, to sell them for themselves to recover what they can. Just hauling "something of value" to the dump can result in charges that you've "squandered resources" that might have paid the debts.

While you're not prevented from selling things, you have to be prepared to prove that the sale was at "fair market value," and "without bias." (Selling your Martin to your brother in law would be highly suspect, so a convincing appraisal had best be documented and no discounts allowed.) You may also be required to prove that the money received was used for legitimate purposes (the safest often being using it to make payments on your debts, but even that isn't simple).

Even using proceeds from sale of items to make payment on one debt can be challenged, since there's a distinct hierarchy of debts, and paying one lower down the food chain can be viewed as "favoritism" in the final settlement. A lender with higher priority can, theoretically at least, demand that the creditor you paid (after filing or immediately before doing so) must give the money back so it can be applied to the "most favored creditor." (Since this makes all the people who are mad at you immediately mad at each other, it's not a good thing where cooperation between your creditors is essential to your survival.)

Some states have a "homestead exemption" that allows you to keep a home (up to a certain value) and you sometimes can have the mortgage debt wiped out in a bankruptcy, but that's not part of the Federal law, not included in many state laws, and has differing limits and conditions from one state to the next in states that do include that provision. Even if you're allowed to keep the home, the bankruptcy court can order you to give creditors nearly everything of value in it - and anything else you may own - to auction off to pay as many as possible of your creditors.

Generally, it may be left up to the creditors to decide whether they wish to claim an asset that you have as "partial payment," so even in states that have clear exceptions that permit you to keep some things, it's incredibly difficult to predict in advance what you may have left after a bankruptcy, what you can sell and how, and what "they'll take anyway."

There are a couple of widely reported cases where people have been "in foreclosure" for as long as five years or so, and cases dragging on at three years are fairly common; but that usually is because the mortgage holder has failed to produce the required documentation showing that there is a clear "owner" of the mortgage. (There are a couple of less common faults that can be argued.) Even then a good (and usually expensive) lawyer is needed to prolong the case beyond the few months that it usually takes for the lender(s) to take possession.

What was reported in the TV show was a simple "eviction." Such events are probably even more common with rentors than with buyers, but are really something separate from the mortgage mess. The eviction, where your possesions are removed (and trashed or otherwise disposed of), is just the last act in getting the premise cleared of your stuff so that somebody else can move in, and can happen for many reasons other than bankruptcy or foreclosure.

Even if you read all the paperwork, follow all the orders of the court(s), vacate the premises, remove everything loose, and clean it all up, there still may be an eviction (that you're not required to attend), merely for the sake of having the law enforcement people able to testify that you have no remaining presence. If there's trash left, it's likely that you didn't plan realistically, or were unable to comply with what you were expected and ordered to do.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 05:00 AM

During the time he is in foreclosure there is nothing (not the boat, not the 5th wheel trailer, not the golf cart, not the jet skis, not the dirt bikes -- nothing) removed from the house.

Rag on

I have a freind whose exhusband lives just like this. Because she was married to him for a certain time while he accrued debts on his house, his toys and his business, after the divorce he started proceedings for bankruptcy. At which point the creditors all came after her.

The courts would not let her have their 3 sons because she could not support them and pay off her ex's unpaid debts. That was in Colorado in the early 80's.

I myself had to take on more than half of combined debt and get none of the property (house, cars, timeshares, etc.) in order to extricate myself from marriage to spawn of satan. He applied for bankruptcy last year and immediately credit card companies started hunting me down followed by the attending collections agents. The joint accounts were closed before the divorce and I took those to pay off. I did not find out until later I was responsible for non jointly held accounts if I was a user. This implicated our kids as well, because they were able to use our credit cards when they went to college for emergencies like car repairs and health care.   I got legal advice and as I am in the UK now, nothing the banks or collections agents can do to me. The ex is working with lawyer etc. to protect the kids (now adults) from the effects of his folly. But I will not be able to move back to the US, unless I want to face the monetary music of the his unpaid debts.

Rag off.

Oh one more bit. Who buys up the auctioned off properties? I bet it is landlords to fatten up their portfolios. The slump will pass and they will be sitting pretty and little wanna be homeowners will for ever pay rent. So much for the American dream.

double rag off.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 07:00 AM

Yes Virginia, your Colorado experiences in the early 80's sound very familiar to me. That's when Reaganomics first got started. Hopefully what we are going through now will be the end of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:26 AM

Yeah, Eb... This is insane policy...

Like I have said over and over... That $350B that evaporated into Wall Street would have been better spent buying out troubled mortgages from the bottom up... This would have ended the housing crisis and the money still would have trickled up to Wall Street...

This is what FDR did in 1933 and it worked then so why not now???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:41 AM

greedy republicans and their trickle the money into my pocket please policies is why.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:53 AM

I have a friend who is moving to Las Vegas. He tells me that some 80% of the properties "for sale" there have been through foreclosure and, under Nevada law, the "former owner" has the right to interrupt a pending sale by paying off any outstanding balance up to six months after being foreclosed. While certainly a good deal for people in debt problems, that makes it more than a little difficult to buy a house or for banks to get dogs off of their books.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 04:55 PM

They happen a lot faster every place I've lived. It occurrs to me, though, that once the market bottomed out, the "former owner"--if he was still in the house, could make a deal with somebody, and still get something out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 06:29 PM

I have seen, 2-3 times, houses where the sheriff has had everything dragged out onto the curb. I had no idea in each case what had gone on in previous months, but they were obviously 'lower class' residences....perhaps where folks had no idea what to do. *IF* I were in that deep, I'd try to rent storage space for important stuff.

Obviously, forced eviction is the last resort of the owner/landlord, but people with no money, no nearby friends/relatives and no comprehension of the law can get into a bind like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 06:38 PM

Banks sending trucks to clean out the house and send the furniture TO THE DUMP?

Got a light?

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 06:53 PM

George Bush and Dick Cheney ain't got nuthin' on Wall Street... Hey, they put out these products (ARM mortgages, Baloon mortagages. mortgages where income wasn't verified) and if this was the mediacl profession these crooks would be facing mal-practice law suits... I mean, if anyone needed to be forclosed on it would be the bankers... Throw their stuff out on the curb and take their stuff to the landfill...

Might of fact, dig up Ronal Reagan and take his body to the landfill, too, 'casue he was the one who demonized governemnt as a institution that had the power to, ahhhhhh, goevern... What a novel concept???

Might of fact, lets go forclose on every Wall Street crook who has atken our bailout money in bonuses... Yeah, put their stuff on the curb... Send them to the housing projects in Newark... Give 'um each a $200 voucher to the Salvation Army or Goodwill to equip their new home... Yeah... That would be just and fair...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 06:56 PM

The rules concerning evictions, foreclosures and reposessions vary from state to state.

If you want to know "the rules" where you live, look up you state government's website and check the "civil code". All states have such a site.

Wherthe the people being trown out are rentors of former owners, the event is going to look about the same on the evening news.

Both are termed "adverse posession" which also includes squatters. Again, the exact laws are in your state's civil code.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:30 PM

I'm a real estate broker.....I live with this every day and it ain't pretty.....in Maine which largely missed the worse of the insanity out there -- we still have maybe 25% of every listed property is either in foreclosure or is in foreclosure and is a short sale. What I see are banks behaving very badly. I had an offer in for $399,900 for a property listed AT THAT price - so full price offer. We were accepted by the seller but because it is short (ie, the seller owes more than $399,900) the bank is involved. As we move through this my clients are living in a hotel while we wait for short sale approval. More work reveals there are 5 lienholders, 2 mortgages and three private liens. Now in my world, the first lienholder has the right to say -- 'I get all the money that is on offer'. And they can do that ... BUT in order to close the deal, all five of the lienholders have to sign off. And guess what -- # 2 lienholder say, yes, I know you are #1 and have a right to all that money but if you don't slip some to me, I ain't signing. My clients sat under contract for 13 weeks and we walked away and bought a different home fort $50 K less. Both the listing broker and I (selling broker) told the bank that if this home goes to foreclosure auction, they will be lucky to get $275K for it. You know the deal with foreclosure auctions -- you have to have guaranteed funds of 10% of the price of the home to even bid and you buy it as is -- no inspections - no nothing. No one does that except low lives building up their inventory of rental homes.

The whole system stinks and banks are behaving foolishly. In resonse to the comments above about houses having stuff taken out of them and trashed, that will be really far along in the cycle. Owners get endless opportunities to get their stuff moved out BUT where do they go? They have no where to go so they wait for the sheriff to come along and evict them and - bingo - another Marie Celeste house with signs of people and no one there. I have been into homes with kids drawings still hanging on the fridge - photos piled up on the floor - sneakers lying in corners - dirty laundry in the wash. I am almost at the stage where I won't have anything to do with these sales but I still have to feed my family too......

It is a Fucking MESS!

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:43 PM

There you have it, folks...

TRUBRIT is sayin' purdy much what I ahve said...

My brother, bless his heart, is also a broker and it is ruining him...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 09:02 PM

Nothing involving this many people is ever simple.

yes, there are good people who are suffering under the foreclosure process. But there are other kinds of people as well.

A reporter in my city accompanied a man who changes the locks on foreclosed houses during his work day. Some houses had fridges full of rotting food, dead pets who had been locked in and left to starve, all kinds of filth, or thousands of fleas. These were obviously not owned by people who valued the house or had any sense of responsibility.

Some of that stuff you saw being trucked away may have come from houses like that. Who would ever want to touch those things?

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 10:11 PM

Jeneeia - you are right .....bad karma. I am not sure what the solution is but I DO know it is a mess

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:01 PM

Gads. I look forward to the day when we can look back and say, Well, it ended up not being that bad after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:42 PM

"I look forward to the day when we can look back and say, Well, it ended up not being that bad after all."

Well, in my state of Nevada the unemployment is at about 7%, the state tax revenue is down 13% and the price of housing is off about 20% from the peak in 2005-6. That is not really Great Depression caliber "hard times".

Many of the skilled jobs in mining are waiting for qualified people who are willing to work hard. Grocery stores, medical and others are normal because there are somethings that must go on in good times or poor ones.

Tourism is down some, but with gas under $2.00 per gallon, there is no reason to think that this year will not bring normal crowds. Perhaps better than the last couple of years with $3-4.00 gas. Skiing is about normal, I believe. Not sure. They always tell us if it is a bad year and there has been no big gripe session yet.

If the Federal goverment would just give us the $2.5 billion needed to balance the state budget and keep our teachers and public employees from being laid-off, things would be OK.

If the Federal "gimmick meisters" would take over about half of the "upside down" house loans and stop all their 24/7 talk of "doom and gloom" things would just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:05 AM

Giving states money so they can balance their budgets doesn't do anything for the state or the economy except. The stats need to go way beyond a balancing act. That's not even a life ring without a life line tied at the bitter end.
The government needs a lot of money to be put into the right places in order to reverse the downward cycle we're bein sucked down into. Shoring up homes & home owners is one of the surest ways. Putting the money into inferstructure is another way of putting folks back to work while at the same time spreading money throughout the economy. Creating new industry like Green Industry in another way. If me miss out here it's like when we missed out on a lot of the high teck industry & other nations dig deep while we scratched & sniffed. The same with gene/cell sciences & climate/eviormental sciences. While Bush drove us back into the caves other nations were busying developing. Obama will drive us in the same way JFK drove the space industry which benifited us in unforseen ways in those times. Health & education is an investment that is sorely suffering & has been for he last 8 yrs, that needds more than a shot in the arms & legs, that renneds a transplant & an infusion of captial & backing.
All the repubs can think of is cutting corners & making a name for themselves. Well, they've already made the name & they were called & voted on that. If they want to survive they need to get with the program or be "buried out"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:28 AM

During the Great Depression Alaska didn't suffer like the 'down south' states did. In the Juneau area, it was mostly because the mining industry was still going great guns; the mines didn't shut down until 1944.

At a concert last night a duo that routinely plays at a retirement home made the point that the old timer residents at the home were not familiar with 'Brother, Can You Spare a Dime'. The song simply never made its way up here. There were no queues, no bread lines.

Sixty years later it is different up here. Our tastes and expectations have been fine tuned to fit those of the most hoity toity ones down south and we would miss the amenites as much as anyone down there.

However, we are vulnerable in ways that are unthinkable elsewhere. We create our own electricity (hydropower) but just about literally everything else comes from elsewhere. We don't have a hope of feeding ourselves, or fueling our cars and generators or making our own clothes or any of the other things normal communities take for granted. A strike affecting barge lines or airplanes or any civil unrest down there could mean extreme anxiety here.

The recession is already impacting Juneau. We have already been informed that the cruiseship industry is going to cut way back this coming year (no one wants to think of next year yet). We have already been notified that several big ships are not going to be traveling north this year, meaning tens of thousands of people will not see Alaska this year.

A friend of mine is in the hotel industry and they are already tightening the operation; remodels and refitting will be put off a year. At least.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:25 PM

I am puzzled by a lot that's happening--PDQ's point, particularly, that there are indeed jobs out there, is striking me as particularly odd.

Notwithstanding the unemployment numbers, I know several people, in different parts of the country, who've either left or lost their jobs, and found new ones in fairly short order. Not like it was nine or ten years ago, when people were getting large signing bonuses, and stock options, but better than a year or two ago. People are sending resumes, getting call backs, and getting hired, which is not what you'd expect at all.

Also, prices seem to be climbing on a lot of items. A very personal example-We've needed a new dishwasher for way too long--I tried to buy one a year or so ago, and due to a comedy of errors, a refrigerator repairman showed up instead of an installer, and and it went back.

In September, I tried to buy the same model again, and discovered that the price had gone up nearly 25%--so I put it off again. This week, will all the talk about a falling consumer price index and doom and gloom for durable goods sales, I shopped around and found that no one was offering it for less than the mfg suggested retail price. I am completely befuddled.

On top of that, houses are selling--off a lot from their peak prices, it's true, but they are selling.

Am I missing the big picture with my examples, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:45 PM

M. Ted...

Please take the post as I wrote it, not as you want to interpret it.

I stated the condition is several job areas and mining, which Nevada has the most in the country, is doing fine. I think gold is way up in value and is driving record efforts to produce it. Silver is easily at a price level that justfiies its production, and copper and iron can be shipped to China, Japan and India.

Repeat: in the State of Nevada, where I live. Repeat: mining, which requires skilled labor in several areas and very hard work, needs more people than it can find. I did not say anything about the country as a whole. Perhaps you, M. Ted, can illucidate us about the rest of the nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:54 PM

...stop all their 24/7 talk of "doom and gloom" things would just fine.

That's one of the few things you've ever said that I have to say I agree with, pdq, though for probably different reasons.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:38 PM

I re-read my post, PDQ, and I guess it could be read that I found what you said odd, when, in fact, I really meant to convey that it was odd but true that there were areas where there were jobs--given everything that is in the news.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:07 PM

well - the good news is that I had a short sale contract APPROVED today -- it has only taken four months.......

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: heric
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 12:54 PM

"The steepest price decline was in Florida's Ft. Myers metropolitan area, down 51 percent, according to the Realtors' report. Saginaw, Michigan, was second, with a 41 percent drop. The next five biggest decreases were all in California: Riverside, 41 percent; San Jose, 38 percent; San Francisco and Sacramento, 37 percent; and San Diego, 36 percent."

Yes, California (regional) home prices down 37%

But guess what: That's not 37% in a year - that's in the last quarter.

I almost put this on the rational fears thread.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY8hiszeIlbU&refer=home

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:10 PM

I have mentioned several times over a span of months, that the entire economic crisis started with the collapse of real estate prices in California.

Eveyone with half a brain (or more) knew that a 4 bedroom/2 bath house in the San Fernando Valley was not really worth $720,000, but loan companies supported those prices with loans. Appraisers supported those prices with their "equivalent home sales" as they are required to do. Real estate agents got their 6% commission based on the inflated prices. People selling houses for which they had paid a fration of the selling price just a few years earlier were thrilled. Fantasy Land was real, it seemed - at least the money it put in some people's pockets was real.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: heric
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:15 PM

I just forced myself to go check it again. That WAS last quarter compared to a year earlier. Sorry about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:27 PM

Since mid-2006, California houses stopped selling, to large extent.

The property owners and real estate agents refused to believe what was happening and kept the prices up for over two years.

Reality met Fantasy Land and won in the last quarter of 2008. Housing prices dropped like a rock because expections had dropped. That $720,000 house I mentioned in the San Fernando Valley is now about $395,000 asking price. Just over two years ago it would have been considerd security for a $576,000 loan.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 12:41 AM

Just a small comment - 6% is a shared commission between two brokers (listing and selling) - those of us with ethics (of whom there are quite a few)_ never do both sides of the transaction and receive a maximum of 3%. Okay so on a $200,000 that is $6K. 1% goffes to taxes. 1% to overhead and 1% brings us any income. That is $2000 on a $200k transaction not 6%. If broker is any good (and many of us are) we work extremely hard for that money -- I personally have an office manager and a lawyer (ok - my husband but he is a lawyer). We both make our living from this business.....the average broker does transactions in the single numbers each year -- we did 48 last year which is huge. This morning - for example - I met a client at a house at 8am and worked through the day to about 7.15 when I left the office. During that time I showed houses out in the boonies of Maine, paying 2% (not 3%) commission and if and when I sell a house under those circumstances, probably a home in foreclosure I shall have earned every last penny

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:53 AM

The property owners and real estate agents refused to believe what was happening and kept the prices up for over two years.

That's quite probably a part of the problem, but you've got to include the newspapers (even more than TV), the County Assessors, and the Chambers of Commerce in the la-la-land dreamers.

My local rag today had a proclamation that "median price of homes sales is up 15%" in the area.

That may (or may not) be "factually true" and the realty agents, the Chamber, and the assessor all hope that people will believe that "the value of houses in the area have all gone up by 15%.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I'll soon get a notice from the Assessor that my house is now worth 15% more than on the last notice.

A few people will say - "gosh I'd better buy now before they go up any more."

What actually has happened is that currently nobody who'd be interested in a house for less than $78,000 (the approximate median market value for all homes in the area) can get a loan now. Only people buying homes for $150,000 or more, the majority of which are new or "existing less than 5 years old" can get a loan, so naturally most of the homes being sold are at the "top of the list" in value.

If only high priced homes can be sold then the median price for sales is probably going up. Since lower priced homes can't be sold because nobody can get a loan to buy them, the average (or median) market value of all homes in the area is actually - like almost everywhere else - continuing the downslide. In all probability the median market value of homes people need to sell to avoid foreclosure and/or bankruptcy, but can't sell at any price is still going down like a dime into a wishing well.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 03:45 PM

pdq, one thing to remember is that during the Reagan administration the method of calculating unemployment was changed. Under the old calculations your 7% would be closer to 13-14%.

The other thing is about the casinoes. Much of their income is derived from people coming from out of state, most from California.

Things are getting to the point in Cali, that I doubt if as many of them are going to be heading to Vegas to blow a couple of grand.

Of course there will be those who go to try to make that one big score.

A driver I spoke to a few weeks ago, who is married to a lady from Mexico, said most of her family and many of their friends were actually going back to Mexico as they were having trouble finding work in LA. I don't know what the statistics are on that, but he was not the first to tell me that.

We haul mostly food, much of it going to California and Nevada, and our business has dropped in that region about 40% in the last quarter as compared to the same period in previous years.

If people aren't buying food I can't imagine that the overall picture is really that good.

Maybe I should move out there and get a job driving a truck in the mines. Of course I'd have a real hard time finding a buyer for the house I bought just before everything turned to s#$%.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 04:10 PM

BHSC,

If you said that the Reagan administration removed housing from the inflation index, I would have no problem ageeing with you.

But his changing unemployment calculations? Can you supply any support for that claim?

Here in Nevada, everything is tied to California. Most of the people living in my county lived there at one time.

Housing prices are perhaps linked but not tied, and we still have an overall housing stock worth 1/2 ot 1/3 of what equivalent houses cost in the select (overpriced) parts of coastal California.

Still, Nevada and California can be considered a unit in many ways, including the economic slump. Las Vegas and Los Angeles are especially "tied at the hip".

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 04:54 PM

Unemployment calculations used to include people who are underemployed(part time), as well as people who are chronically unemployed because they can't find the job they are trained to do.

Current calculations call the guy with a phd, as employed even if that is at walmart or Mcdonalds.

The numbers they use now basically only count those who have filed unemployment claims, and don't continue counting you after your claim expires.

Many of the people who are unemployed now are ineligible for unemployment due to the nature of the jobs they had, and are not counted. This would include the small business owner who goes broke, and his employees if he was not paying into the system on their behalf.

The thousands of trucking owner operators who have gone broke are not counted, and no one even has any idea how many of them there are.

In the first three quarters of 08, 875 trucking companies employing 129,000 drivers went broke. That doesn't include the support workers with those companies, add around another 15,000. That only counts companies with more than 30 trucks, and incidentally accounts for 6% of the total truckload capacity of this country.

Now consider that 90% of the industry is comprised of fleets with 5 or fewer trucks that are not included in that #. The owner of these companies cannot collect unemployment and many drivers in this industry are paid as contract workers and therefore cannot collect. None of these is included in the current figures.

The unemployment figures they use now are a joke compared to the old system. Reagan did this to simply show improvements that weren't there.

Most of the economists I have heard recently say the nationwide numbers are somewhere between 10 and 15% realistically.

Of course you won't hear that on Fox Noise, as most of them deny that there is even a real problem with the economy.

By the way, that phd working at walmart will also be ineligible for unemployment in most states because very few of walmarts employees are considered full time.

On one hand, some of the problems are not as bad as some in the media would have you believe, but some of the problems are being downplayed bigtime.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 04:58 PM

During the Reagan administration, the unemployment calculation was altered in several ways - the most significant was to eliminate a group called "discouraged workers". These are people who have effectively given up, and haven't looked for a job in the previous 4 weeks. Additionally, those who are working part-time are considered fully employed, even they want to work full time. It wasn't until the end of Bush I's reign that these changes were fully implemented, and I never heard that Bro Bill tried to roll them back. The "official" figure is called the U3...another rate, called the U6, folds most of these changes back in, and is most useful in making historical comparisons.

Back in the dark ages (1972-74), when I was working on a graduate degree in Economics, most literature held that the "natural" unemployment rate, considering those who were voluntarily between jobs, was 5-6%. My memory is a bit hazy, but I think the "unemployed" group at that time included those who said "yes" to a question something like "would you like to work even you aren't currently looking for a job?"

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 05:07 PM

In January 1994, a major redesign of the Current Population Survey was introduced which included a complete revamping of the questionnaire, the use of computer-assisted interviewing for the entire survey, and revisions to some of the labor force concepts.

Above is from www.bls.gov

They only show the most recent change which I guess would put that one on the shoulders of Clinton, but it doesn't say what those changes were.

Thanks Art for your input, as I was sure the changes were initially started by Reagan.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 05:39 PM

As I said, blame Reagan for removing the cost of houses from the inflation index, but the rise in housing was out of proportion to historical levels. Again, Clinton made no effort to reverse the changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: DannyC
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:51 PM

I haven't been watching much TV (save for the CSPAN goings ons)...

I have been out gigging over the past few weeks.
First to Lynchburg, Virgina and then on to the Carolinas and then back up to Kentucky where I've worked Cincinnati, Louisville and Lexington. I'm out there every winter - it's different now.

Once I got south of the mtns. I started noticing the unusually high number of trailerless vehicles loaded down with what looks like everthing the occupants can carry. It's not the usual NY, NJ, New England crowd that hugs that eastern corridor each winter --- now there's loads of Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin folks... out of jobs - out of options - trying to get warm. The lightness of truck traffic --- even out of the Port of Charleston, SC --- is a telling sign.

Florida is down and out and prolly not a good spot to get work. So these Americans-of-the-edge seem to be wandering in the middle - but where the weather suits their circumstances. There were multiple folks inquiring for jobs at every stop that I made over a two week period.

I saw a man from Michigan (stone sober) asking for gas station work at 2AM last Saturday night in Erlanger, KY. His family was in the car. I saw this as I was rolling home from a gig where the owner had paid me with a check (despite the good turnout), and, it being these times, I accepted the risk. We ought not be tough on one another, if we can.

At a modest Valentine's lunch (we are fortunate) that my wife and I enjoyed today. We met a factory kid from Traverse City, MI who was our server. (If he's a waitress I'm a ballerina.) He says Northern Mich. is all closed up --- all done. His wife's expecting in a few month. Big, strong, clumsy kid laying down soup and salad.

We're trying to do what we can in these encounters.

The Reagan/Bush Revolution is now in full flower. Remember the days when Dan Quayle headed up the "Council for Competitiveness"? The Council's mission was to get the government off the backs of the wealth-building, highly-productive, job-creating American entrepreneur. (So we got a l'il fast and loose with the money supply every time we took a bump?   We had it goin' on babay!!). We were told the root of any problem could be found in evil government regulation. (BOO!! HISS!! The preachers coached the chorus!!)

Reagan, Bush, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, Quayle, etc. all proclaimed the unimpeachable efficiency of the self-regulating free market.   Under this model, every one of us serves as a commodity - so we can go and purchase other commodities (aka the things that are now littering the houses-of-broken-dreams). The reactionaries' lies were leavened with a big dose of old time religion.   FOOLS!! We bought the story.   But it is now clear:

The reckless Reagan/Bush experiment has failed completely... Lay the coming misery of the people at their door.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: DannyC
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 09:59 PM

It is disingenuous to throw Clinton in with the Republican reactionaries (Reagan, Bush, Gramm, Gingrich and their ilk).

Remember that Clinton attempted to overhaul America's commodity-driven health system, but was thwarted by the successful obstruction tactics employed by the now-discredited reactionary Congressional leadership along with a powerful media movement led by the FOXes and Rush the Opiate Addict.

The reactionaries controlled the Executive for 20 of the past 28 years.   During Clinton they fought a very bitter and successful obstructionist campaign...   and Bill sure as hell didn't help himself.

The reactionaries drove the agenda that have landed us with these dreary prospects, and we are entitled to pin the fetid bloom on their Brooks Bros lapels.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 11:02 PM

Adolph had the solution to unemployment.

Declare being unemployed criminal.

Send them to the labor camps.

Then they're not unemployed - they're convicts.

Problem solved.

We're getting close.

Up until around 1970 or into the early '80s, the CPI actually meant something, and you could track the "value of the dollar" (in loaves of stale bread) back to about 1800. The current CPI changes the metrics every time a new report comes out, there is no continuity to the reported changes, and there is no "base value" to tie this quarter's change to what happened in the previous quarter. Quite obviously, recent administrations just write down the result they want reported, and the peasants back at the office must change the rules to get the result the boss wants.

Much the same "manipulation" has happened to the reports on unemployment. If they're not collecting (or in the process of begging for) unemployment, they don't count. That leaves a whole bunch of people who "aren't there" - because they don't qualify for an unemployment check, or because they were self-employed, or for dozens of other reasons.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:32 AM

The really bad part is the people who say we haven't been here before.

Reaganomics was not new, it was used before to the SAME end.

The following excerpts are from the biographies of US presidents on the whitehouse.gov site.

Harding
Republicans in Congress easily got the President's signature on their bills. They eliminated wartime controls and slashed taxes, established a Federal budget system, restored the high protective tariff, and imposed tight limitations upon immigration.
By 1923 the postwar depression seemed to be giving way to a new surge of prosperity, and newspapers hailed Harding as a wise statesman carrying out his campaign promise--"Less government in business and more business in government."

Behind the facade, not all of Harding's Administration was so impressive. Word began to reach the President that some of his friends were using their official positions for their own enrichment. Alarmed, he complained, "My...friends...they're the ones that keep me walking the floors nights!"

Coolidge
As President, Coolidge demonstrated his determination to preserve the old moral and economic precepts amid the material prosperity which many Americans were enjoying. He refused to use Federal economic power to check the growing boom or to ameliorate the depressed condition of agriculture and certain industries. His first message to Congress in December 1923 called for isolation in foreign policy, and for tax cuts, economy, and limited aid to farmers.
In his Inaugural he asserted that the country had achieved "a state of contentment seldom before seen," and pledged himself to maintain the status quo. In subsequent years he twice vetoed farm relief bills, and killed a plan to produce cheap Federal electric power on the Tennessee River.
The political genius of President Coolidge, Walter Lippmann pointed out in 1926, was his talent for effectively doing nothing: "This active inactivity suits the mood and certain of the needs of the country admirably. It suits all the business interests which want to be let alone.... And it suits all those who have become convinced that government in this country has become dangerously complicated and top-heavy...."

Hoover
After capably serving as Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, Hoover became the Republican Presidential nominee in 1928. He said then: "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land." His election seemed to ensure prosperity. Yet within months the stock market crashed, and the Nation spiraled downward into depression.
After the crash Hoover announced that while he would keep the Federal budget balanced, he would cut taxes and expand public works spending.
In 1931 repercussions from Europe deepened the crisis, even though the President presented to Congress a program asking for creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to aid business, additional help for farmers facing mortgage foreclosures, banking reform, a loan to states for feeding the unemployed, expansion of public works, and drastic governmental economy.
At the same time he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.
His opponents in Congress, who he felt were sabotaging his program for their own political gain, unfairly painted him as a callous and cruel President. Hoover became the scapegoat for the depression and was badly defeated in 1932. In the 1930's he became a powerful critic of the New Deal, warning against tendencies toward statism.

Any of this sound familiar?

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

It's truly amazing that the republican talking heads are using the same arguments today that they used in the last depression they brought us.

Much of Roosevelts New Deal worked, some of it didn't. The one thing we have going for us now is the fact that we have a President now who is known for having read a few books who can hopefully sort out the stuff that works from the stuff that doesn't.

We are alot closer to the great depression than the republicans will acknowledge, but they seem determined to get us there.

I sincerely hope that Obama will drop the bipartisanship idea and just get the job done.

Roosevelt tried the same thing and his efforts were frustrated until he finally realised he didn't really need their support and just did it.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: DannyC
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 10:34 AM

Well said BHSC,

I suppose I'm feeling a sense of urgency concerning the swaying of the public discourse.   History shows us that the masses do not stay in this glassy-eyed, stunned state for an extended period. This sort of social dislocation - if it does not abate within a short time - has always led to some level of civil disorder.

My fear is that the American people still have a headful of rightist rhetoric, and that extended suffering would open the door to dangerous demagoguery. I can not disagree with some Reagan-legacy commentators who confidently state that Americans are still basically right-of-center.

I am hopeful that Obama's daily sensible speaking is having an impact that will lessen the risk of a reactionary mobilization, but my general feeling is that the public sentiment has not settled. I have been warily watching the reactionaries' media efforts and waiting for History to emerge once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:24 PM

BHSC,

There doesn't seem to be anyting seriously wrong with the analysis of 1920s Republican presidents that you reproduced, but the statement about Harding...

      "Word began to reach the President that some of his friends were using their official positions for their own enrichment"...

Is hardly something unique to Republicans!

As to economic policies that were successful, would you care to analyze the Jimmy Carter adminisration? 16% T-bills, 12% first mortgage money, 11% inflation. Also, if the price of gas in Jimmie's last year is adjusted for inflation, it is about $4.00 dollar per gallon.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Nickhere
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:07 PM

It's a weird world. The government promises the banks recapitalisation to the tune of billions to bail them out of the mess they helped create. OUR billions, I should add, as this is taxpayer money. So, the banks get OUR billions (ok, along with a few minimal conditions, such as they lend it rather than sitting on it like Smaug the Dragon), they then lend this money out in the form of loans, and possibly mortgages.

The borrowers - mostly taxpayers like you and me - pay these loans back at nice fat rates of interest to the banks.

The banks get this repaid money and loan it out again.... now all of this has become by sleight of hand THE BANKS' money!!!???

I dunno, sounds a lot like money-laundering to me!

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 09:59 PM

pdq, I would not really claim Carter's administration to be successful.

There are many reasons for the problems he faced, one of which is he's just basically too nice and too honest for the job.

I think Carter has done far more good for the country and the world since he left office, and continues to do much good in the world.

One of the reasons I voted for Reagan was the fact that my first car loan, while Carter was President was at 18% interest. My second was at 23% interest.

I have always considered myself basically a fiscal conservative, the problem being we haven't had one of those in the republican party in about fifty years now.

These people in the party now don't know what a true conservative is.

They do not represent anything that I stand for.

True conservatives believe that anyone can make a good life for themselves if they work hard and smart.

The current system is set up so only people who already have money can make money.

There is a HUGE difference between free trade and fair trade.

The idea of removing all regulation and letting the private sector take care of everything social is ridiculous.

Without regulation there is no incentive for corporations to take care of anything.

Dead miners, dead truck drivers, dead customers, are all just figured in as costs of doing business.

Whether or not you get treatment at your local for profit hospital is determined by whether you are more profitable alive or dead.

Whether or not the car company fixes the defect in your car is determined by whether the lawsuit is more expensive than the fix.

The current republicans keep saying "socialism" and comparing the democratic agenda as leading to a Soviet style country when in fact the totally deregulated oligarchy they have created is much closer to how the USSR was actually run.

IMHFO

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 10:47 PM

"...would you care to analyze the Jimmy Carter adminisration? 16% T-bills, 12% first mortgage money, 11% inflation. Also, if the price of gas in Jimmie's last year is adjusted for inflation, it is about $4.00 dollar per gallon."


                   These were all things that Carter was fighting desperately against, but he was trying to do it in a manner that wouldn't destroy the average American citizen. When Reagan came along, he was only interested in rewarding his political friends, and didn't give a shit about the average American citizen, so he drove them into the poor house.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 11:27 PM

One problem is that, although martgages are collateral loand, the lenders never wanted to accept the collateral if the borrower defaulted. Consequently, they acted as if the collateral was largely irrelevant, and based their lending on what they thought the borrowers' ability to pay might be in the future. Dumb.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 10:05 AM

"These were all things that Carter was fighting desperately against"

No, those things mentioned were caused by Jimmie Carter. That does not mean that people can't like him because you can still like someone who has major faults.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 11:09 AM

'although martgages are collateral loans, the lenders never wanted to accept the collateral if the borrower defaulted.'

I agree, Dick. Our newspaper had an article about a fine home in one of our nicest neighborhoods. The buyers defaulted and left town, but the lender REFUSED to foreclose, leaving its ownership in limbo. The property is deteriorating. It even has a filled swimming pool, growing algae and posing a hazard. And nobody will do anything.

These are not businesspeople.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 12:21 PM

Actually, they are business people; that's the problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:41 AM

I disagree. Business people do deals and try to make money.

Somebody who disavows ownership of a fine house because it's too much work to take care of it is merely a fool and vandal.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:56 AM

Something that has become a burden to the "investor" being dumped on the local taxpayers, because taking care of it themselves would cut into their profit too much.

Just another symptom of the overall problem.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1%20%3Chttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1%3E

While there is plenty of blame to go around, maybe some of the onus should be shifted from the Bush administration. 4 minute video report.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 10:47 AM

Lets get it straight once and for all.

Credit, Bankruptcy and Forclosure laws were changed over the last 10 years.

For example a bankruptcy judge is now allowed to restructure laons for yachts but NOT for primary residences.

All the cards have been stacked against people who are poor or simply not multi millionaires.

Banking laws, loan statues and regulations must all be brought back to a modicum of fairness.

The finanacially privatized society that was introduced via right wing think tanks, World Bank and the billionaire class has brought disaster to the entire world. When water has been privatized in Argentina, or South Africa the outcome has been Cholora, dissentary and death for those who could not pay in advance for water that had previously been free or a funded Sate municiple water system.

Global financial privitization without regulation has proved to have done more damage to families worldwide than World War 2.
This has been an attack and the the victims are only now starting to be identified.

The secret Wall Street insurance scams, Hedge fund hedging, deregulation of every aspect of finance, derivitive instruments and new bundled financial instruments were clearly designed to concentrate wealth and then wipe out everyone but the billionaires who sold us on the new ownership society.

Yes it began with Nixon, Reagan both Bushes and the Clinton Global trade concessions but NVER had the wholesale eradication of virtually all fianance laws been worse than during the last eight years.

The benefits of Free Trade would still be alive and well if it were not for the efforts of right wing think tanks that are funded by bankiing families.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:04 PM

sp corrections

loans

financially

statutes

jeea, other forums allow folks to edit spelling

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:28 PM

I heard a banker on a local NPR radio talk show about an hour ago. Under the new rules, according to him, marginal credit [un]worthy buyers w/scores as low as 610 will still be ab;e to buy homes with only 3-1/2% down. What the hell has changed????????????
He thought this was greatest thing since Rye/Sourdough marbled bread.
To coin a phrase...SSDD.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:32 PM

I neglected an important point...he was speaking of FHA loans only...not that I see much difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:39 PM

Article on the new housing plan here.

Not a great amount of detail yet, but it's a start.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:54 PM

I finally got the link at H Post to work to get the text of the speech and there is quite a bit of promising detail.

One thing is the crooked lenders and the over-borrowers who knew they coulod not afford the homes they bought, will not be able to take advantage of the plan.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: heric
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 04:13 PM

But a short time ago I lamented in a recent thread, location unknown, my inability to grasp the "deflationary spiral thing," or its great significance. Someone provided a very helpful explanation, and now, I just read an article which also helps a lot.

The feds do very much want to cause inflation against significant (private sector) debt loads, which, surprsingly, is not easy. Inflation of home prices is important to guard against the deflationary spiral, which is much more harmful and far-reaching than we armchair economists / news junkies would expect from houses just falling back to sensible prices.

(I don't really understand it but this article does help.)

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 11:16 PM

610 is a marginally acceptable score but it is better than the 500s where people were previously. people have to get started on the housing rung and with house prices way down -- 3.5% loans makes homes affordable. As long as the credit score and profile is checked, it seems to me that is A OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 11:57 PM

TRUBRIT, not a 3-1/2% loan; a down payment of 3-1/2%. In other words, a buyer is able to purchase a home with literally no equity as a cushion in a market of falling prices. This is one of the major reasons we're in this mess now. This will only compound it. If that sounds good to you, remind me not to put money in any bank you run.

In the olden days, when sound economics meant something, it was usual for a first lender to require 20% down payment so the buyer had a real stake in their home. Only veterans had access to government back ed loans and they required, I believe 5% down. I don't remember what FHA loans required 38 years ago when I bought my first house (20%), but I believe that part of the monthly payment was to insure the loan for the government or the lender.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 05:08 AM

I believe the standard for most rational bankers is to finance no more than 90% of the appraised value of the house, unless there is gov't underwriting on the loan.

By the time you figure closing costs, taxes, etc you should have 15-20% down.

That is why a lot of people can't get refinanced when they find themselves in a negative equity situation.

The new plan seems to address this problem, but we'll have to wait and see how it comes together.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 10:15 AM

When I bought my first home, through the VA program, the required down payment was zero. This was 1976, and I think the FHA requirement was the same at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:04 AM

artbrooks, inasmuch as you bought a home throught he VA, I defer to your comment. But I am not as sure about your FHA comment, I don't remember it being zero down in the 60s and 70s...but I don't have time for researching it.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 12:21 PM

VAloans are still zero down. FHA are - as stated above - 3.5% down with various closing costs, often required to be funded by the seller. John -- I do take your point, but i believe the world has changed. I used to be a lender back from 77 - 84 and you are right that ideally 20% was the required downpayment -- you could purchase Private Mortgage Insurance to cover lower down payments. In the present world we live in with costs of everything skyrocketing, I wonder if it is reasonable or feasible for the buyers to come up with 20% diwn. They have massive school debts and massive insurance premiums if they are lucky enough to have insurance. You are absolutely right that the less money put down, the less vested a buyer is in a house. But the crucial issue, it seems to me, is that loans were made with NO CONSIDERATION OF PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO PAY.We realtors called them Liar Loans --- tell the loan officer what they wanted to here. THAT is the travesty. But if someone has good credit and has the ability to oay, and understands the implications of what signing a long term contract are, and the price of the house is not inflated I see nothing wrong with the 3.5% down loan. Ideal - no. Workable - yes! And remember the mortgage tax breaks really makes it impractical to rent rather than buy in this world -- it is the last legitimate middle class tax break......

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 01:42 PM

TRUBRIT - If one can't afford a down payment sufficient to protect both them and the lender, there is alternative housing called rentals, which you disparage. I worked for six years after marriage, had a child, and rented until I had the 20% down, and most of my novn-verran friends did likewise. None of us ever defaulted on a mortgage as we traded up to better housing. It is, in most cases the setting of sound economic priorities, that keep folks from getting in trouble.

There are priorities in one's life. One need not build up massive debt to go to school. My son wanted to go to prestigious Pomona College, on my state university budget. Even with scholarships, a work program, he would have finished 4 years with $25 - $30K debt, and that was for class of '91. In todays world he would have to gointo debt about $75K for four years. He spent 4 years at UCLA and came away with zero debt.

One doesn't need a $40,000 car if one is struggling financially; a $20K, or a good used car will do as well.

Sound economic principles don't fail us; it's the social tinkering with those principles which has done much to get us to where we are now. Low, low downs, to people without adequate resources, is a political, but not an economically sound principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 02:19 PM

As has been noted, VA loans can still be with zero down. In the past, a mortgage insurance deposit could be required if the down payment was less than 20%, but when the mortgage was paid down to 80% of the original loan, the "insurance" fee was refunded to the buyer. So many mortgagers "conveniently forgot" to make the refund that it was decided that it was a "persistent and pervasive fraud" so the insurance is no longer required for a VA loan.

There is a special fund to provide mortgage insurance, if the buyer wants it, but it is only available for veterans with a "service connected disability."

Commercial mortgage insurance is available, but is only "affordable" for people young enough that they're unlikely to have the 20% down (a customary decision point for whether you should have it) and varies from "very expensive" to "H***y SH*T!!" for anyone "of age" and completely unavailable for anyone with any kind of disability that doesn't qualify for the VA insurance.

FHA loans several decades ago had a "target" value of 15% down, but there were some conditions for which waivers could be obtained to allow a purchase with less. In that time, about the lowest down payment that would qualify - that I heard of - was about 7.5%. The 15% was the maximum that a lender could demand on an FHA loan, and the lender had to agree to a lower one before the loan was made. Of course a lender didn't have to participate in the FHA program at all, but most of the major ones did.

Both the FHA and VA loan programs, for some time after the programs were begun, had something of a "stabilizing" effect on ordinary commercial mortgage terms. Since fairly large numbers of people had access to loans with reasonable - and mostly clearly defined - terms, open market lenders generally came close to those terms.

The "Reaganomic" theory that increasing available investment capital actually has some truth. If there is insufficient money available, lending that contributes to real economic growth may be insufficient to meet the potential available. With an inadequate access to "venture funding" nothing new gets created, and the "machinery of production and commerce" wears out and is inefficient.

The other side of the coin however is that an excess of investment money - which is the situation I believe we've seen in recent years - is inevitably destructive. And we are now in the stage of "being destroyed."

Any significant amount of money cannot be allowed to just lay around in the bank. There is an imperative that it be invested "in something" or there's no return to the investors.

With an excess of funds available, instead of new ventures and legitimate productive projects searching, sometimes desperately, for money, we find money seeking investment and money managers looking for ways to induce people to borrow.

The most obvious "easy lending" of the recent "excess capital lending" probably was in new home construction. As the "market became filled" additional construction of moderately priced homes became risky because people who might have bought them were something of a risk as borrowers. Quite obviously a contractor borrowing money to build wants to build something that will return the maximum profit and that means building "for people with money" (or with good credit), so the median target price for new homes has leaped up rapidly, currently to $250,000 and above across the country.

When it was found that most of those who wanted, and could afford, these new homes were already living well enough the MONEY had to find others to buy them. This is the point at which "creative financing" for home buyers began to appear and "boom."

The first step, obviously, in making houses that are too expensive for less wealthy buyers is reduction of the interest rate on the mortgage. Of course with a reduced interest rate, the lender has reduced return on all of the loans made to cover the loan failures that might occur with lending larger amounts to people less able to pay, so the risk is greater.

The recent past Administration and Congress, instead of taking action to reduce the risks or to limit the making of unsafe contracts took action to transfer more of the risk to the borrowers. This was done by "rewriting" almost entirely the whole body of regulations on lenders, and by literally gutting the Federal Bankruptcy regulations to increase the liability of borrowers and (theoretically only) increasing the prospects of recovery by lenders. Some of the "rewrite" was by tacitly accepting what the "money managers" greedily were doing, but much of it was by specific enactments.

Unfortunately, just saying that the borrower carries all the responsibility is meaningless if the borrower lacks the resources to pay.

The entire current fiasco is the result of producing AN EXCESS OF INVESTMENT CAPITAL and diversion of the "wealth" away from those whose "spending" was needed to absorbe what was produced by it.

Much of the excess investment capital is now simply gone, but unfortunately it did not go to the consumers who are the other side of what's required for a healthy economy. "Reagonomics" - which only sees one side of the picture - simply went a whole long way too far, without seeing that a BALANCED economy in which both rich and less-rich participate is what is needed.

When legitimate borrowers cease seeking credit and the money has to go looking for, and creating, borrowers who shouldn't be borrowing, then we're obviously "upside down" in our economy. We were there for several years.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 02:51 PM

JotSC, I do have a problem with the rental deal.

I just recently bought my house on a gov't program with zero down.

One of the reasons I bought it was I could not find a house to rent that I could afford.

My house payment with taxes and insurance included is only $425/mth.

The house next door is a rental, has the same floor plan, and rents for $850/mth.

I didn't overextend myself on buying, but with the current economy and cutbacks at work, there is no way I could afford the rental.

The rentals in this area generally run 2-3 times what the payment would be to buy.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 03:05 PM

If house rentals are so expensive in a area, and I know they often are, apartments can be had at a much cheaper rate. Or a house in another are may be rented less dearly. Again, it is a matter of prioties.

I don't know where you live [I'm not asking], but I now it's not in California. LOL

But whatever, I hope you live a wonderful life in your home; I hope, too, that that isn't a teaser rate which may bite you in the ass someday.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 03:05 AM

Honestly -- I don't disparage anythng -- it isn't my style -- I merely observe. Round here whether you rent a house or a small apartment th bottom line rental cost isn't that different/ If you buy under FHA - a highly reputable and solid program that requires 3.5% down and does NOT offer a teaser rate - you shouild be (with the advice of a good broker of whom there are many() - OK













en

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 09:42 AM

I heard of a community that is placing homeless families in forclosed homes.

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 09:17 PM

Donuel -- I think that is inevitable---and appropriate

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 09:31 PM

The geodesic dome house next door went through foreclosure about five years ago, and it was vacant for about a year. The neighbor played cat-and-mouse with the bank for a long, long time, so I don't blame the bank. He moved out when the house was sold, but was a "collector" and left all sorts of junk - including about 50 junk car batteries that were on our side of the property line. He also left a city bus (turned into a camper) and an inoperable RV and a 24-foot van truck on our property. He finally took the truck and the bus, but left the RV behind because he didn't have a clear title on it. Now his new neighbors complain to us about his junk.

The dome is now occupied by a contractor who made it into a very nice home, but now the log cabin house two doors down has been vacant for two years because the owner died and his family moved to San Francisco. The market isn't good for selling, so it stays vacant.

I don't like having vacant houses in the neighborhood. A truck full of men drove up to the dome at 2AM while it was vacant, and a homeless person took up residence for a while in a vehicle in the driveway of the log cabin.

I thought it was safe, living here in the country. Maybe not.

My sister's on the other side. Her husband died several years ago, and now the market's down and she lost her job, and can't afford her house.

It's not a good time.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 09:47 PM

No - it is not a good time..

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: bald headed step child
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:36 AM

My house was purchased on a Rural Developement loan through the Dept of Agriculture. It is in a small town(suburb).Fixed rate 30yr, so it should not be a problem as long as my job doesn't go away.

One of the big problems with the market now is something I heard yesterday.

At least 60% of the people given sub-prime loans actually qualified for regular prime loans and were never told that.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 12:37 PM

Definition

"The meaning of 'subprime changed during the last quarter of the 20th century. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, in 1976 a subprime loan was one with a below-prime interest rate; it wasn't until 1993 that the term took on its present meaning.            

The American Dialect Society designated the word 'subprime' as the 2007 word of the year on January 4, 2008.

Subprime mortgages are defined by the financial and credit profile of the consumers to which they are marketed. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury guidelines issued in 2001, 'Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories that include payment delinquencies, and possibly more severe problems such as charge-offs, judgments, and bankruptcies. They may also display reduced repayment capacity as measured by credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, or other criteria that may encompass borrowers with incomplete credit histories.'"

{hybrid statement from several folk's statements}

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Jayto
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM

Most of the times the homeowner (especially if the residence is their only home) is distraught and really now thinking clearly due to stress, fear, denial or whatever. It is easier to get in that situation than most would like to think. Locally we are having massive amount of layoffs and businesses shutting down. Economically it is a very tough time. 4 or 5 yrs ago when people bought their houses they really didn't see the crash coming. Now with all the layoffs and shut downs there are alot of people hurting. Tack inflation on top of the cut in pay and a few medical bills and boom you are in trouble. Jobs are very hard to find because of the massive influx of people job searching. It is not a comfortable thought but it is very easy anymore to find yourself in this scenario. I just had a baby in Jan. for 2 days in the hospital in a normal nursery not counting delivery or her mothers accumulated bills it was $3000. That was just for a 2 day nursery stay where she spent most of the time with me in her mother's room. I know credit cards get alot of talk right now but it doesnt take very many trips to the Dr before medical sinks you. Everyone that has been getting laid off is also losing insurance.
cya
JT

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 11:55 AM

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities

Howard Husock 2000

"The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects..."

                                                   "read all about it"

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: pdq
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 12:41 PM

BAILOUT BULLIES

ENTITLEMENT CULTURE GONE MAD

Michelle Malkin April 2, 2008

LAST week, a mob of screeching protesters invaded the Bear Stearns headquarters in Manhattan demanding more aid for homeowners. As you know, I oppose federal bailouts of every make and model - and that includes both the Bear Stearns deal and the bipartisan stimulus-palooza in Washington.

But the bank-bashers who held their demonstration in New York City against Bear Stearns and JPMorgan are totally unhinged. And out of control.

Here is the face of the entitlement culture gone mad: "We will go to their neighborhood, we will educate their children on what their parents do. They should be ashamed," said Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) founder Bruce Marks in a nasty warning issued to employees of both banks.

This isn't an idle threat. Bruce Marks is no harmless lone nut. He has a record of showing up at children's schools and bullying them because of their parents' employment. All in the name of "social justice," of course, and securing loans for every last bad risk on the face of the planet. He's so proud of his behavior, he calls himself a "bank terrorist."

Has he earned scorn and condemnation? Of course not. As a reward for his tactics, The Boston Globe named him "Bostonian of the Year" in 2007. The paper praised his "sensible innovation." It fawned over his "curious blend of in-your-face activism, customer-focused service, Machiavellian angling and social-justice passion."

As The Globe reported in its cover feature on Marks, there's no line of decency this housing shakedown artist won't cross. Welcome to the
subprime politics of personal destruction: "Marks and his yellow-T-shirted followers have swarmed shareholders' meetings with enough force to shut them down. They have picketed outside the schools attended by the children of bank CEOs, pressing the youngsters in signs and chants to answer for the actions of their daddies."

And they even once distributed scandal sheets to every house in one CEO's neighborhood, detailing the affair he was allegedly having with a subordinate. In time, that CEO, like most of the others that NACA targeted, sat down with Marks and signed a deal.

"To those who found his tactics an outrageous invasion of bank executives' personal lives, Marks refused to acknowledge any line between home and work. 'What you do is who you are,' he says. 'It's all personal.' "

My leftist opponents have labeled me a "stalker" for publicizing the public contact information of anti-war activists who ran military recruiters off their college campus - and for researching, documenting and challenging the assets of a two-property, three-car-owning Democratic poster family held up as unassailable arguments for massive government health-insurance expansions. Meanwhile, housing-entitlement bully Bruce Marks gets citizen-of-the-year accolades while rolling in housing-hustle dough.

It's all about the money for Marks' group, which browbeats banks and lenders into billion-dollar deals to allow its activists to arrange mortgages for their high-risk constituents. NACA - with dozens of offices across the country - has a no-down-payment, no-closing-costs, low-interest-rate policy for low-income minority borrowers and takes a hefty fee for each transaction.

NACA loan applicants are then required to attend workshops glorifying the group's protest thuggery. Those whose loans are approved must then pledge to assist the group in five "actions" (like the one at Bear Stearns' headquarters) per year. When they're not clamoring for more homeowner funds and federal Community Reinvestment Act money, they're bombarding the feds with regulatory complaints to halt any planned bank mergers or expansions.

Those radical actions have yielded a windfall as fearful corporations fork over money to preempt Marks' extortionist mau-mau-ing. In 2003, Citigroup coughed up $3 billion in mortgage loans to NACA through 2013. Bank of America, which first partnered with (succumbed to) NACA in 1995, handed over $6 billion through 2015.

Let me repeat the threat he issued at the Bear Stearns protest last week: "We will go to their neighborhood, we will educate their children on what their parents do. They should be ashamed." If any prominent liberals have criticized Marks' tactics, I haven't heard them. Have you?
Lesson learned: Screaming "racist" pays.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 01:32 PM

Gee PDQ--why not bring the discussion a little closer to the present? Are you so desperate for scandal and outrage you have to trawl for it down the annals of history? Here's a tip: Google "John WIlkes Booth" or "Keating Five" or "any number of other hot topics.

Sheeshe.

That said, Marks sounds like a piece of work, all right. Is it your intent to imply that he in some way represents the thinking of others on the liberal side of the spectrum? Because if you are trying to imply that, it is a pretty covert way to do it, sort of passive-aggressive, if you see what I mean. Totally aside from the fundamental observation that such an implication would be totally nutball. So it couldn't be what you meant, but if it isn't I wonder what you are trying to say with your historical researches?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:05 PM

"I do know that in 2004, when the Bush administration ordered Fannie Mae [Federal National Mortgage Association] and Freddie Mac [Federal Home Mortgage Corp.] to increase the number of mortgages they bought from people below the median income, I complained and said, "Look, you are going to jeopardize them, and you are going to push people into mortgages [they] can't afford."

I do remember very clearly, by 2005, several members of the Committee on Financial Services -- again, the Republicans were in the majority during this point -- two from North Carolina, where there has been real leadership on this, [Democratic Reps.] Mel Watt and Brad Miller, and myself, working with the Republican Spencer Baucus [R-Ala.], started to see if we could draft the legislation to restrict bad subprime mortgages. A couple of others were trying to do this, too, [Reps.] Paul Kanjorski [D-Pa.] and Ed Royce [R-Calif.].

So by 2005 there was a recognition that too many bad mortgages were being issued, and we were trying to work something out. And then [Texas Rep.] Tom DeLay, as the Republican leader, sent word to [Rep.] Mike Oxley [R-Ohio], the chairman of the committee: "Stop it. You are not going to get any bill up." ... First we tried to push Greenspan to use the authority, and he wouldn't do it. And secondly, we then tried to draft a bill, and Tom DeLay said no. ... If we had been able to stop it in 2005, we would have diminished this crisis."

Chairman Barney Franks

Subject: RE: BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 02:02 PM

But they should never have let ACORN talk them into giving loans to deadbeats!