Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Mortgage Bailout

Mortgage Bailout

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comhelpquestionannouncement
80 Posts 16 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • E Ed Gadziemski

    It's my opinion that human decency requires us to not lump everyone into one category and I believe we should not be the first to cast stones. Somebody said that once. Some people bought houses they could perfectly well afford and then were laid off. Others developed health or family problems such as divorce that ate up their cash reserves and income. Quite a few took adjustable rate mortgages in anticipation of increased equity and got slammed when the interest rate readjusted. About 10% bought houses they could never afford and should not have been granted mortgages.

    L Offline
    L Offline
    leckey 0
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    Can you site some sources on those stats? The info I have read puts the "can't afford" rate much higher. Thanks! :)

    Back in the blog beatch! http://CraptasticNation.blogspot.com/[^]

    E 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • O Oakman

      Christian Graus wrote:

      It's my opinion that people who bought houses they could not afford

      It's not always that easy. I read of one case where a woman put down 30% on her home but, because the money was in sub-prime mortages, the mortgage broker set her up with an adjustable ARM that kicked in after two years and jumped every six months. Now, even though she's got a job; even though she could easily make payments on the fixed rate mortgage she should have gotten, she's been foreclosed. Okay, she obviously wasn't the brightest bulb on the block. But the first time you buy a home, you want, very badly, to trust the person who is putting together your mortgage. And, of course, she could be the only person who was served badly by these mortgage brokers - some of whom had been pizza delivery guys not too long before (I'm not kidding, someone who was a highup in Countrywide said that)- and everyone else who is being foreclosed upon is the scum of the earth. But I wouldn't put too much money on it.

      Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

      C Offline
      C Offline
      Christian Graus
      wrote on last edited by
      #22

      Oakman wrote:

      Okay, she obviously wasn't the brightest bulb on the block

      Yes, I'm sure a lot of people got pushed into things they could not afford. I'm not saying these are bad people. I'm saying they are probably mostly pretty dumb, and dumb is still not something that other people should have to pay for.

      Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

      C 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • E Ed Gadziemski

        It's my opinion that human decency requires us to not lump everyone into one category and I believe we should not be the first to cast stones. Somebody said that once. Some people bought houses they could perfectly well afford and then were laid off. Others developed health or family problems such as divorce that ate up their cash reserves and income. Quite a few took adjustable rate mortgages in anticipation of increased equity and got slammed when the interest rate readjusted. About 10% bought houses they could never afford and should not have been granted mortgages.

        C Offline
        C Offline
        Christian Graus
        wrote on last edited by
        #23

        Which is why I said it should not be the *only* criteria, not that no bail out at all is reasonable.

        Ed Gadziemski wrote:

        Others developed health or family problems such as divorce that ate up their cash reserves and income.

        Well, that's sad ( seriously ), but that happens to people all the time, this lot should get bailed out because of the timing of when it happened to them ?

        Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

        E S 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • S Stan Shannon

          Christian Graus wrote:

          The point of taxes is that they are spent to benefit those who pay them

          The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that. Taxes are spent to keep government in power by producing the illusion in enough people that they are benefiting at some one else's expense.

          Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

          C Offline
          C Offline
          Christian Graus
          wrote on last edited by
          #24

          Stan Shannon wrote:

          The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that

          Who pays your police, your army ? Who pays for your schools ? You do, via taxes. Without taxes, none of these things would exist. Do you also get robbed ? Yes, but, in THEORY, you should be able to have a say, at the ballot box, to control the problem.

          Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

          S 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • O Oakman

            Ed Gadziemski wrote:

            Plus, we could have saved about $10 trillion if we had simply addressed mortgages, the alleged root of the problem, instead of trying to trickle-down from Wall Street.

            It's my understand that we could have paid off every mortgage in the country - which should have ended the cry sis.

            Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #25

            Wow! That would be sucha cool way to kick start things! If every mortgage were paid off, then everyone would suddenly have more disposable income (well, not everyone - some lucky people who have paid off their mortgages would gripe that it's just 'not fair') Is that seriously how much money you're talking about in the US? Enough to pay off all the mortgages!?

            ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

            O 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • O Oakman

              Marc Clifton wrote:

              the cost of the subsidies would be paid by the American TAXPAYER!!!

              You're right. But it's my understanding that these subsidies help more than just the potential defaulters. All of the homes on the same block are in danger of losing their value if one or two homes there are foreclosed on - and then suddenly people who have been doing everything right find themselves upside-down on their loans.

              Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

              L Offline
              L Offline
              Lost User
              wrote on last edited by
              #26

              Also, one imagines, that many defaulters may be otherwise eligible for welfare payments (don't know how it works in the US) and so will be an ongoing cost to he taxpayer - whereas keeping them house with a one-off payment may reduce the overall long term tax bill - and get them spending money.

              ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • C Christian Graus

                It's my opinion that people who bought houses they could not afford, deserve to lose them. Being in a house you can't afford should not be the only basis for the tax payer to buy it for you.

                Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

                L Offline
                L Offline
                Lost User
                wrote on last edited by
                #27

                Christian Graus wrote:

                should not be the only basis

                true - if you're a couple with no kids living in a million dollar mansion is the proposal to pay it off in the same way a couple with five kids living in a rundown hovel? Wouldn't it be more sensible to make the payments a (very) long term loan? Add a percent onto the tax bill of those in need, until they pay back the loan?

                ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

                C 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • L Lost User

                  Christian Graus wrote:

                  should not be the only basis

                  true - if you're a couple with no kids living in a million dollar mansion is the proposal to pay it off in the same way a couple with five kids living in a rundown hovel? Wouldn't it be more sensible to make the payments a (very) long term loan? Add a percent onto the tax bill of those in need, until they pay back the loan?

                  ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

                  C Offline
                  C Offline
                  Christian Graus
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #28

                  Yeah, I agree. Something to help tide people over without actually paying for their home makes sense to me

                  Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • E Ed Gadziemski

                    It's my opinion that human decency requires us to not lump everyone into one category and I believe we should not be the first to cast stones. Somebody said that once. Some people bought houses they could perfectly well afford and then were laid off. Others developed health or family problems such as divorce that ate up their cash reserves and income. Quite a few took adjustable rate mortgages in anticipation of increased equity and got slammed when the interest rate readjusted. About 10% bought houses they could never afford and should not have been granted mortgages.

                    L Offline
                    L Offline
                    Lost User
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #29

                    Ed Gadziemski wrote:

                    t's my opinion that human decency requires us to not lump everyone into one category

                    Even mortgage brokers?

                    E 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • C Christian Graus

                      Stan Shannon wrote:

                      The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that

                      Who pays your police, your army ? Who pays for your schools ? You do, via taxes. Without taxes, none of these things would exist. Do you also get robbed ? Yes, but, in THEORY, you should be able to have a say, at the ballot box, to control the problem.

                      Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

                      S Offline
                      S Offline
                      Stan Shannon
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #30

                      Christian Graus wrote:

                      Who pays your police, your army ? Who pays for your schools ? You do, via taxes. Without taxes, none of these things would exist. Do you also get robbed ?

                      If that is where it stopped I would be perfectly happy with it. Those are the only legitimate reasons to tax (and with schools the taxation should be purely a state/local concern)

                      Christian Graus wrote:

                      Yes, but, in THEORY, you should be able to have a say, at the ballot box, to control the problem.

                      That theory is predicated entirely on being able to cast a free vote. Those who are dependent upon the same state they are voting for cannot possible cast a free vote. Its impossible. They are dependents.

                      Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                      C 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • L Lost User

                        Wow! That would be sucha cool way to kick start things! If every mortgage were paid off, then everyone would suddenly have more disposable income (well, not everyone - some lucky people who have paid off their mortgages would gripe that it's just 'not fair') Is that seriously how much money you're talking about in the US? Enough to pay off all the mortgages!?

                        ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

                        O Offline
                        O Offline
                        Oakman
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #31

                        Thats what was said by Mort Zuckerman, owner of US News & World Report to Joe Scarborough about a week ago

                        Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • L leckey 0

                          Can you site some sources on those stats? The info I have read puts the "can't afford" rate much higher. Thanks! :)

                          Back in the blog beatch! http://CraptasticNation.blogspot.com/[^]

                          E Offline
                          E Offline
                          Ed Gadziemski
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #32

                          Statistics from Freddie Mac:

                          (PDF) According to a 2006 study conducted by Freddie Mac, unemployment or curtailment of income (36.3%), illness or death in the family (25%), and excessive obligation (13.6%) are at the top of the reasons homeowners get into trouble.[^]

                          Statistics from Countrywide Mortgage:

                          Countrywide Financial, the largest mortgage company in the country, also cites economic performance as a cause of foreclosures. In 2007, Countrywide released its findings on the main reasons for foreclosure, which was reported in about 80 percent of the cases. --Curtailment of income: 58.3% --Illness/Medical: 13.2% --Divorce: 8.4% --Investment Prop./Unable to sell: 6.1% --Low regard for property ownership: 5.5% --Death: 3.6% --Payment adjustment: 1.4% --Other: 3.5%[^]

                          Also, various studies show loss of home value is a major contributor. In the United States as a whole, 34.6% of the sales made in 2008 were done at a loss. Related to the rapid increase in housing prices are those who overextended in order to buy a home before they becamse even more expensive. Statistics on home pricing effects on foreclosures and defaults from Goverment Accounting Office:

                          (PDF) Zandi et al (2007) estimated that changes in home price appreciation explained about three-quarters of the nationwide increase in mortgage delinquency rates from the fourth quarter of 2005 through the first quarter of 2007.[^]

                          L 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • L Lost User

                            Ed Gadziemski wrote:

                            t's my opinion that human decency requires us to not lump everyone into one category

                            Even mortgage brokers?

                            E Offline
                            E Offline
                            Ed Gadziemski
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #33

                            Josh Gray wrote:

                            Even mortgage brokers?

                            Sadly, yes. Human decency is at its best when we can forgive the worst.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • E Ed Gadziemski

                              Statistics from Freddie Mac:

                              (PDF) According to a 2006 study conducted by Freddie Mac, unemployment or curtailment of income (36.3%), illness or death in the family (25%), and excessive obligation (13.6%) are at the top of the reasons homeowners get into trouble.[^]

                              Statistics from Countrywide Mortgage:

                              Countrywide Financial, the largest mortgage company in the country, also cites economic performance as a cause of foreclosures. In 2007, Countrywide released its findings on the main reasons for foreclosure, which was reported in about 80 percent of the cases. --Curtailment of income: 58.3% --Illness/Medical: 13.2% --Divorce: 8.4% --Investment Prop./Unable to sell: 6.1% --Low regard for property ownership: 5.5% --Death: 3.6% --Payment adjustment: 1.4% --Other: 3.5%[^]

                              Also, various studies show loss of home value is a major contributor. In the United States as a whole, 34.6% of the sales made in 2008 were done at a loss. Related to the rapid increase in housing prices are those who overextended in order to buy a home before they becamse even more expensive. Statistics on home pricing effects on foreclosures and defaults from Goverment Accounting Office:

                              (PDF) Zandi et al (2007) estimated that changes in home price appreciation explained about three-quarters of the nationwide increase in mortgage delinquency rates from the fourth quarter of 2005 through the first quarter of 2007.[^]

                              L Offline
                              L Offline
                              leckey 0
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #34

                              TY! I will research tomorrow.

                              Back in the blog beatch! http://CraptasticNation.blogspot.com/[^]

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • C Christian Graus

                                Which is why I said it should not be the *only* criteria, not that no bail out at all is reasonable.

                                Ed Gadziemski wrote:

                                Others developed health or family problems such as divorce that ate up their cash reserves and income.

                                Well, that's sad ( seriously ), but that happens to people all the time, this lot should get bailed out because of the timing of when it happened to them ?

                                Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

                                E Offline
                                E Offline
                                Ed Gadziemski
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #35

                                Christian Graus wrote:

                                this lot should get bailed out because of the timing of when it happened to them ?

                                No. One addresses a problem by uncovering the root and treating the rot. If it is true that bad mortgages are the root of the world's current rot, then throwing trillions at the leaves and branches as we are and have been doing fails to address the problem. I'd rather spend $500 billion to solve the problem, even knowing that some people will reap undeserved benefits, than continue to spend trillions to line the pockets of so-called financial wizards while not solving the problem. It's nice to stand on priciple, Christian, and piss on people worse off than yourself, and please, continue to do so if it makes you feel superior, but a little pragmatism mixed with a little compassion is what it will take to clean up the mess we're in. We have not and will not solve the problem by throwing buckets of cash at Wall Street and the other "players" that got us here.

                                C B 7 3 Replies Last reply
                                0
                                • E Ed Gadziemski

                                  Christian Graus wrote:

                                  this lot should get bailed out because of the timing of when it happened to them ?

                                  No. One addresses a problem by uncovering the root and treating the rot. If it is true that bad mortgages are the root of the world's current rot, then throwing trillions at the leaves and branches as we are and have been doing fails to address the problem. I'd rather spend $500 billion to solve the problem, even knowing that some people will reap undeserved benefits, than continue to spend trillions to line the pockets of so-called financial wizards while not solving the problem. It's nice to stand on priciple, Christian, and piss on people worse off than yourself, and please, continue to do so if it makes you feel superior, but a little pragmatism mixed with a little compassion is what it will take to clean up the mess we're in. We have not and will not solve the problem by throwing buckets of cash at Wall Street and the other "players" that got us here.

                                  C Offline
                                  C Offline
                                  Christian Graus
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #36

                                  Ed Gadziemski wrote:

                                  It's nice to stand on priciple, Christian, and piss on people worse off than yourself

                                  Well, those are two different things. I wasn't seeking to do the second, except to the degree that it's possible that helping people pretty much at random, some of whom deserve it only because they are stupid, may well not solve the worlds issues, it will just spend a lot of money.

                                  Ed Gadziemski wrote:

                                  We have not and will not solve the problem by throwing buckets of cash at Wall Street and the other "players" that got us here.

                                  Well, that was just bloody stupid, I wasn't advocating that, either.

                                  Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

                                  E 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S Stan Shannon

                                    Christian Graus wrote:

                                    Who pays your police, your army ? Who pays for your schools ? You do, via taxes. Without taxes, none of these things would exist. Do you also get robbed ?

                                    If that is where it stopped I would be perfectly happy with it. Those are the only legitimate reasons to tax (and with schools the taxation should be purely a state/local concern)

                                    Christian Graus wrote:

                                    Yes, but, in THEORY, you should be able to have a say, at the ballot box, to control the problem.

                                    That theory is predicated entirely on being able to cast a free vote. Those who are dependent upon the same state they are voting for cannot possible cast a free vote. Its impossible. They are dependents.

                                    Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                                    C Offline
                                    C Offline
                                    Christian Graus
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #37

                                    Stan Shannon wrote:

                                    Those are the only legitimate reasons to tax (and with schools the taxation should be purely a state/local concern)

                                    What about the fire service ? Ambulances ? The forest service ? The list goes on.

                                    Stan Shannon wrote:

                                    . Those who are dependent upon the same state they are voting for cannot possible cast a free vote. Its impossible. They are dependents.

                                    I tend to agree, and that's the problem with welfare, is that people will vote for whoever pays them the most. Personally, I think that those on the state's dime, should not be allowed to vote until they have a job and are paying taxes.

                                    Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

                                    S 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • C Christian Graus

                                      Ed Gadziemski wrote:

                                      It's nice to stand on priciple, Christian, and piss on people worse off than yourself

                                      Well, those are two different things. I wasn't seeking to do the second, except to the degree that it's possible that helping people pretty much at random, some of whom deserve it only because they are stupid, may well not solve the worlds issues, it will just spend a lot of money.

                                      Ed Gadziemski wrote:

                                      We have not and will not solve the problem by throwing buckets of cash at Wall Street and the other "players" that got us here.

                                      Well, that was just bloody stupid, I wasn't advocating that, either.

                                      Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

                                      E Offline
                                      E Offline
                                      Ed Gadziemski
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #38

                                      Christian Graus wrote:

                                      helping people pretty much at random, some of whom deserve it only because they are stupid, may well not solve the worlds issues

                                      Helping a targeted group of people -- those who are in default but will be able to pay their mortgage with a simple adjustment in terms, the forgiveness of penalties, and perhaps a principal only/no interest moratorium of 2 years -- won't solve the world's issues but it will go a long way toward correcting the foundational issues of the current financial crisis. In addition, it will stabliize the real estate market, create a floor for property values, stop the death-spiral that lower property values have on municipal property tax recipts, and save mortgage companies and banks a goodly sum of cash, since foreclosures typically result in a 40% or more loss to the lender. I see nothing wrong with those results.

                                      C 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • E Ed Gadziemski

                                        Marc Clifton wrote:

                                        the cost of the subsidies would be paid by the American TAXPAYER!!!

                                        You're right about that. Unlike the $10.7 trillion squandered thus far on Wall Street, I give my full support to the mortgage program and consider it a prudent use of my tax dollars.

                                        B Offline
                                        B Offline
                                        BoneSoft
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #39

                                        Yeah! Cuz two wrongs don't make a right! Unless... One was bigger? Then the smaller horendous abamanation is a great idea? When WRONG = wrong, wrong = :thumbsup: :confused: Ouch, liberal math gives me a headache. :sigh: [edit] Please disregard this post, you said it much better later in the thread. :) :rose: [/edit]


                                        Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

                                        modified on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 12:04 AM

                                        E 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • O Oakman

                                          Christian Graus wrote:

                                          It's my opinion that people who bought houses they could not afford

                                          It's not always that easy. I read of one case where a woman put down 30% on her home but, because the money was in sub-prime mortages, the mortgage broker set her up with an adjustable ARM that kicked in after two years and jumped every six months. Now, even though she's got a job; even though she could easily make payments on the fixed rate mortgage she should have gotten, she's been foreclosed. Okay, she obviously wasn't the brightest bulb on the block. But the first time you buy a home, you want, very badly, to trust the person who is putting together your mortgage. And, of course, she could be the only person who was served badly by these mortgage brokers - some of whom had been pizza delivery guys not too long before (I'm not kidding, someone who was a highup in Countrywide said that)- and everyone else who is being foreclosed upon is the scum of the earth. But I wouldn't put too much money on it.

                                          Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                                          B Offline
                                          B Offline
                                          BoneSoft
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #40

                                          Personally, I don't think of any of them as the scum of the Earth, the lenders were in a lot of cases (and the clowns that made other lenders do it). And I feel for them. But their loan is their responsibility, and it has to be that way, it should be that way. It sucks, but sticking everybody else with the bill is adding an unfair solution to an unfair problem. I say we sieze Jimmy Carter and ACORN's assets (and the dough ACORN is getting from porkulus), shut down and liquidate the assets of Freddy, Fannie, Country Wide, and any other lender that did hugely blantant preditory lending and divy that up amongst the worst of these mortgages. :thumbsup:


                                          Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

                                          S 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups