BS: Foreclosures and Repossessions

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!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: TRUBRIT
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 09:47 PM

No - it is not a good time..

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: 20 Feb 09 - 09:17 PM

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

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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