Yet Another Keep People In Their Home Plan

N

nasum

CAGiversary!
Aimed at people who fucked up.

http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/rea...g-homeowners-1309312646029/?link=SM_clmst_sum

Call me a classy republican if you must, but this fucking sucks. I pay my mortgage, extra payments in fact, and I'm rewarded with nothing.
Someone in foreclosure, or in danger of, now gets an interest free loan that doesn't even need to be paid back as long as the person/people don't sell the home for 5 years after the payments stop.

Now, I'm not advocating that we kick every one out as that will create a situation where there's too much inventory and the bank is left holding the house. Why not create a comprommise where the loan gets extended to reduce payments? This way the principle is still getting paid (bank is happy), the payments are lower (homeowner is happy), there's no foreclosure (both parties are happy) and more interest will be collected over the length of the loan as opposed to none being collected due to foreclosure (mostly bank is happy but homeowner is happy too because they aren't getting booted out).
Is that so wrong?
 
It barely helps anyone, 30,000 the article said. Plus honestly, if they fall behind again or do try to sell the home, they'll be worse off than before. Guess I have different problems with it.
 
[quote name='nasum']Aimed at people who fucked up.

http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/rea...g-homeowners-1309312646029/?link=SM_clmst_sum

Call me a classy republican if you must, but this fucking sucks. I pay my mortgage, extra payments in fact, and I'm rewarded with nothing.
Someone in foreclosure, or in danger of, now gets an interest free loan that doesn't even need to be paid back as long as the person/people don't sell the home for 5 years after the payments stop.

Now, I'm not advocating that we kick every one out as that will create a situation where there's too much inventory and the bank is left holding the house. Why not create a comprommise where the loan gets extended to reduce payments? This way the principle is still getting paid (bank is happy), the payments are lower (homeowner is happy), there's no foreclosure (both parties are happy) and more interest will be collected over the length of the loan as opposed to none being collected due to foreclosure (mostly bank is happy but homeowner is happy too because they aren't getting booted out).
Is that so wrong?[/QUOTE]

I won't call you a classy Republican but I will call you an idiot. Keep kicking the little guy and letting the fatcats off the hook.
 
Fell free to call me what you will, but seriously, how can that not piss you off if you pay your bills on time and all that?
If you bought into an ARM without understanding it, well fine, let's get you into a simple term loan with a fixed %. Of course, that means I'm kicking the little guy.
If your home value tanked due to the horrendous govt management of sub-prime loans, then we'll adjust your mortgage so that you have a lower payment per month, but you'll pay longer. Of course, I'm kicking the little guy by helping him stay in his house.

Who is letting the fatcats off the hook in my example? They're having to extend the period of the loan to cover a client who is a proven risk. Will they make more interest in the longrun? Yes, but that's the cost of home ownership. I hate to have to say it, but things cost money and if you want to have (and keep) those things you have to pay for them. Actually no, I don't hate to say that. It's a pretty simple fact of life.
Besides, if we "stick it to the fatcats" by letting all the homes foreclose, then the people are out of a house. What then? With shit credit they'll end up not being able to purchase a similar (or more likely a lesser) home. So now it's renting? Maybe someone will swoop in and buy up large amounts of homes and turn them into rental properties. Well that's supporting another fatcat for you. Hell, some of them are probably slumlords and won't care about anything other than profit anyway.

So yeah, I'm a fatcat supporting idiot because I want to keep people in home's without resorting to free money at the expense of some better designed program. A box of dicks, you and a fork buddy.
 
The banks really arent interested in loan modification, so your premise that keeping people in their homes is better for all parties is wrong. They're actively looking to foreclose on people. Or as JP Morgan Chase sez: "CHASE is in the Foreclosure Business, NOT the Modification Business"

Its not a particularly good program, but I cant say I'm upset about it, nor am I about other welfare/unemployment. The government doesnt have many tools to act on this problem. Back during the first Republican Depression the government basically bought mortgages en-masse and then refinanced them, in just the way you're suggesting. Since we're not going to nationalize banks and/or engage in that particular kind of SOCIALISM, we have to do stupid shit like this instead.
 
I'm not a big fan of those kind of things either.

It's up to an individual to only buy things like a house when they're sure they can afford it and have long term job security (or at least a marketable enough skill set to be unlikely to every face long-term unemployment) etc.

I agree that sometimes things have to be done to keep the market from collapsing with too many foreclosed homes and too many people in hard times and unwilling to buy etc. Not sure these type of "get out of foreclosure free" card type programs are the best answer though. *shrugs*

I'm not supportive of banks at all, don't get me wrong. But I'm also not particularly sympathetic to people who take on debts they can't afford, or take on debts when their long term job security isn't clear etc.

Home ownership is a luxury, not a right. There's no shame in renting.
 
After reading this thread, it's like predatory lending doesn't exist or that mostly poor people of color created this mess.

And for all the bitching about "being responsible," good for freaking you. Now you don't need to take that loan and won't have a hit in your credit rating that'll follow you the rest of your life, which would probably also prohibit you from buying another home. But hey, fuck those poor fuckers right?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not a big fan of those kind of things either.

It's up to an individual to only buy things like a house when they're sure they can afford it and have long term job security (or at least a marketable enough skill set to be unlikely to every face long-term unemployment) etc.

I agree that sometimes things have to be done to keep the market from collapsing with too many foreclosed homes and too many people in hard times and unwilling to buy etc. Not sure these type of "get out of foreclosure free" card type programs are the best answer though. *shrugs*

I'm not supportive of banks at all, don't get me wrong. But I'm also not particularly sympathetic to people who take on debts they can't afford, or take on debts when their long term job security isn't clear etc.

Home ownership is a luxury, not a right. There's no shame in renting.[/QUOTE]
You're right, but you also have to know that banks in recent years were more than willing to give practically anyone a loan for a house. And frankly, ignorant people don't know any better. The loan officer tells them they can afford it, they believe it.

My parents years back, just before the shit started hitting the fan, bought a house on and fixed rate loan and then refinanced a few years later into an ARM, something they didn't understand and I didn't know about or I would have warned them. The bank was happy to give it to them though. Eventually they could no longer afford it and lost the house, shame none of this existed then.
 
[quote name='Clak']You're right, but you also have to know that banks in recent years were more than willing to give practically anyone a loan for a house. And frankly, ignorant people don't know any better. The loan officer tells them they can afford it, they believe it.
[/QUOTE]

Yep, that's why I'm not a fan/supporter of either party in this situation.

I don't like how the banks pray on people and give loans they shouldn't give with their predatory lending bullshit.

But at the same time I don't feel much sympathy for people who get into financial trouble due to their own ignorance and naivety in letting banks sucker them into their predatory practices.

It's nothing to do with race or class as dohdough seemed to imply. People of all walks of life end up in foreclosure situations. Ignorance doesn't follow any race or social class lines. People have to be responsible for becoming informed and knowing what they're doing before making major investments like buying a house. I'm not going to feel sorry for those who don't do their due diligence and end up getting taken advantage of.

That said, I do support cracking down on banks for predatory lending practices even if I don't feel sorry for the people who get suckered as that shit affects the whole housing market and thus affects all of us.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, that's why I'm not a fan/supporter of either party in this situation.

I don't like how the banks pray on people and give loans they shouldn't give with their predatory lending bullshit.

But at the same time I don't feel much sympathy for people who get into financial trouble due to their own ignorance.[/QUOTE]
You mean like how people should never trust cops? I agree. But we all know how that works out. ;)
 
It's true of any situation really. It's up to people to be informed and make good decisions.

Be it a loan, or knowing your rights when interacting with a cop during a traffic stop or other enounter etc.

We need laws and regulations to keep banks and police and other entities inline as much as possible and to protect citizens/consumes rights. But none of that absolves individuals from being informed and making smart decisions and not screwing themselves over through their own ignorance.
 
[quote name='nasum']So yeah, I'm a fatcat supporting idiot because I want to keep people in home's without resorting to free money at the expense of some better designed program. A box of dicks, you and a fork buddy.[/QUOTE]

What better designed program would that be.

No seriously I didn't read at all.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What better designed program would that be.

No seriously I didn't read at all.[/QUOTE]

In his earlier post he said he was more supportive of modifying loans--extending the length to lower the payment so the person could afford it etc. as a better option.

Seems reasonable to me. Person can stay in their house (assuming they can afford the new payment) and the bank makes more on interest from the longer repayment period.

But as others noted, banks prefer foreclosures to loan modifications unfortunately. But maybe some regulations can be changed to alter that preference.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's true of any situation really. It's up to people to be informed and make good decisions.

Be it a loan, or knowing your rights when interacting with a cop during a traffic stop or other enounter etc.

We need laws and regulations to keep banks and police and other entities inline as much as possible and to protect citizens/consumes rights. But none of that absolves individuals from being informed and making smart decisions and not screwing themselves over through their own ignorance.[/QUOTE]
Blaming the victim? You should know better than that considering the field you work in.

Access to information is not equal, just like justice...or even punishment for that matter. Agency is worth shit if the system puts up road blocks to exercise it.

For example, everyone over 18 is legally able to vote, but it doesn't mean that it's easy for everyone. Between voter intimidation, having it on a week day during business hours, and ballot location discrimination, do we really make it that easy for people to vote?
 
doesn't mean they should vote either...

Predatory Lending - I think that's one of your dog whistle words man. Yes, telemarketing loans to the elderly who don't need the loans or offering ARMs to those on a fixed income is terrible and wrong. However, a person of reasonable intelligence should smell scam when someone says I'll shave 85% off your current monthly for a couple of years if you're willing to spin the wheel of fortune to see what your payment will be after that. That is personal responsibility, though you continue to scoff at that notion as well.

You're the one that thinks that black poor people are the problem, I suggested nothing of the sort. Simply that interest free loans that possibly don't need to be paid at all really aren't an ideal solution for anyone. When putting words into my mouth, please use some more Tapatio as they're dull and flavorless...
 
I'm not blaming the victim. Just saying people have a responsibility to be informed. For the cop example, people need to know that they don't have to say yes if the cop asks to search their car or give them a breathalyzer etc., and that saying know isn't an admission of guilt etc. Things like getting forcibly searched illegally etc. are of course not the victims fault (though they should know their rights so they know they've been a victim and can so etc.).

And sure, access to information isn't necessarily equal and that sucks as do all forms of inequality in society. But people still have the responsibility to inform themselves before making a big decision like buying a house. Anyone who's literate can, if nothing else, go to the library and check out some books about home buying, or use the PCs in the library to surf the net and do research that way etc. More of a hassle than for people with internet at home etc., but still freely available to anyone.

As for the voting thing, similarly people need to know their rights so they don't fall suspect to intimidation. The hours thing is moot as anyone can do an absentee ballot of they can't get to a polling place on election day during open hours. Again, it's the individual's responsibility to find out that they can vote absentee (a simple call to the county election board will do the trick, or surfing the site etc.). Aside from that, everywhere I've lived the voting hours have been 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. I can't imagine a huge chunk of people work that type of 12 hour shift as it would be an odd time range for a 12 hour shift. So I'm sure the majority can pop in to vote before or after work or on their lunch break etc. Elections are expensive to hold so it's hard to justify having the polls open much longer than that given that a 7 to 7 window works for the vast majority of people. Of course, if there are places with say 8am to 5pm hours only, then that is bullshit and should change.

But these types of things we'll never see eye to eye on as empathy just isn't my strong point as I generally hate people. :D I didn't choose my field to help victims or any other sappy bullshit. I just find it interesting topic wise, and knew I wanted an academic job due the independence and being able to spend the bulk of my work hours just working by myself in my office and not having to deal with other people (outside of teaching and meetings which are just a few hours a week and almost none during the summer months). :D
 
The problem with predatory lending wasn't so much scams but was more along the lines of banks giving people loans that their income and credit ratings didn't justify.

They were taking far too much risk by approving far too many people for loans for amounts way above their actual means, and convincing applicants that they could afford the payments.

At least that's what I mean when I use the term. I can't speak for others.
 
[quote name='nasum']Aimed at people who fucked up.

http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/rea...g-homeowners-1309312646029/?link=SM_clmst_sum

Call me a classy republican if you must, but this fucking sucks. I pay my mortgage, extra payments in fact, and I'm rewarded with nothing.
Someone in foreclosure, or in danger of, now gets an interest free loan that doesn't even need to be paid back as long as the person/people don't sell the home for 5 years after the payments stop.

Now, I'm not advocating that we kick every one out as that will create a situation where there's too much inventory and the bank is left holding the house. Why not create a comprommise where the loan gets extended to reduce payments? This way the principle is still getting paid (bank is happy), the payments are lower (homeowner is happy), there's no foreclosure (both parties are happy) and more interest will be collected over the length of the loan as opposed to none being collected due to foreclosure (mostly bank is happy but homeowner is happy too because they aren't getting booted out).
Is that so wrong?[/QUOTE]

You know what separates you from those people being given a handout? One lost job, perhaps cancer and shitty health insurance, at any rate it doesn't take much these days to make someone fall behind on their house payments.

What are you getting instead of a handout? A good credit rating, be happy with it.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You know what separates you from those people being given a handout? One lost job, perhaps cancer and shitty health insurance, at any rate it doesn't take much these days to make someone fall behind on their house payments.
[/QUOTE]

That's something everyone needs to realize. Once that's realized, the next step is to be responsible and don't buy a house until you have a nest egg that can cover at least 6 months (if not a year) of expenses including the mortgage payments.

You never know when you can lose your job or have some other emergency come up that makes you unable to pay your mortgage on current income. Thus one should never buy a home without a sizable nest egg saved up first to make them able to weather a period of unemployment or illness etc.

I'll be renting for several years more myself while building up my nest egg and a big down payment. Hell, I somewhat prefer renting as it's nice not having to deal with maintenance yourself (as long as you have a good landlord/management company anyway).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's something everyone needs to realize. Once that's realized, the next step is to be responsible and don't buy a house until you have a nest egg that can cover at least 6 months (if not a year) of expenses including the mortgage payments.

You never know when you can lose your job or have some other emergency come up that makes you unable to pay your mortgage on current income. Thus one should never buy a home without a sizable nest egg saved up first to make them able to weather a period of unemployment or illness etc.

I'll be renting for several years more myself while building up my nest egg and a big down payment. Hell, I somewhat prefer renting as it's nice not having to deal with maintenance yourself (as long as you have a good landlord/management company anyway).[/QUOTE]

That's the problem with the economy right now though. We're seeing people unable to find employment for much longer than previous recessions. Even if they were responsible and had a 6 month nest egg they could easily be out of work for that long.


A lot of the people who are losing their homes didn't do anything wrong except for being caught in the wrong job at the wrong time. There isn't a lot most of them could do. I don't blame them for wanting to hold onto their houses and I don't blame politicians for wanting to help them accomplish that.
 
Yep, that's why I said "if not a year" as I think people need to wait longer and save up even more than in the past.

But at the end of the day, taking a loan on anything is always going to be a risk. And you just have to accept that if you take a loan there's always some chance , even if you're responsible about it, that something could happen and you could end up losing it and have nothing to show for the money you paid up to that point.

If one's not comfortable taking that risk, then save up until you can buy it outright or just remain a renter indefinitely. But realistically, if you save up 6-12 months expenses and buy a house that's well with in (i.e. under) your means, your chances of losing it are pretty slim.
 
[quote name='nasum']doesn't mean they should vote either...[/quote]
Uninformed voters vote all the time. Do you know about the stances of all of the people on your ballot? Probably not, but that isn't a criteria for the right to vote and you should be happy about that.

Predatory Lending - I think that's one of your dog whistle words man. Yes, telemarketing loans to the elderly who don't need the loans or offering ARMs to those on a fixed income is terrible and wrong. However, a person of reasonable intelligence should smell scam when someone says I'll shave 85% off your current monthly for a couple of years if you're willing to spin the wheel of fortune to see what your payment will be after that. That is personal responsibility, though you continue to scoff at that notion as well.
Click to expand...
Dog whistle for what? The ability of those with capital to manipulate those without/with-not-as-much? If this was really about "personal responsibility," then people getting these loans should not be an issue because they will be dealing with the consequences of a bad credit history. What you're advocating for is for those that Really caused this mess to still be compensated for their screw ups. People taking loans didn't fuck everything up; people giving them did.

You're the one that thinks that black poor people are the problem, I suggested nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...right...I'm the racist for pointing out someone else's racism. We've had this discussion before. Just because I took a 3 week vacation doesn't change that.

Simply that interest free loans that possibly don't need to be paid at all really aren't an ideal solution for anyone. When putting words into my mouth, please use some more Tapatio as they're dull and flavorless...
Click to expand...
Actually, it's extremely ideal. The people get to keep their homes and the banks get their money. It's far better than giving all the money to the banks and hoping that they'll spread it around like we did initially.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's true of any situation really. It's up to people to be informed and make good decisions.

Be it a loan, or knowing your rights when interacting with a cop during a traffic stop or other enounter etc.

We need laws and regulations to keep banks and police and other entities inline as much as possible and to protect citizens/consumes rights. But none of that absolves individuals from being informed and making smart decisions and not screwing themselves over through their own ignorance.[/QUOTE]
A lot of finance terms are hard to understand though, I understand it pretty well usually, but if you don't and ask the loan officer, you think they'll always be honest?
 
[quote name='Clak']A lot of finance terms are hard to understand though, I understand it pretty well usually, but if you don't and ask the loan officer, you think they'll always be honest?[/QUOTE]

The burden is still on you, or me or whoever the customer is to not sign anything until they understand it fully. And no you shouldn't trust the loan officer. Go home and look things up online, ask friends or family who have more homebuying experience, check a book about home buying out of the library and read it etc. before signing anything.

And really, people aren't often getting fucked over by complicated terms of loans-at least not in regards to that being the main reason they get foreclosed on. They fuck themselves over by doing things like buying more house than they can afford and having a monthly payment that's too large a percentage of their monthly take home pay. Or buying a home before having a year or so of expenses saved up and/or before having a reasonably secure job etc.

If you can make all your payments easily, the terms aren't that important in terms of risk of losing the house obviously. They can fuck you over in the way of you ending up paying more than you could have if you bargained better etc. But as long as you don't take a loan you can't afford, buy a house under your means, and have savings built up first you're very unlikely to every lose the house unless something extraordinarily bad happens in your life. And again, that's just a risk you take if you take out a loan for anything. There's always a chance shit can happen and you can make your payments and you lose your investment. That's just the gamble you take when taking out a loan for anything. All you can do is be informed and be very conservative in your loan purchases--again live well under your means--and minimize the chances of that happening.
 
Well take ARM loans for example. I don't even know that many banks take the time to explain what that means, and frankly most people would probably have a hard time understanding it anyway. I'm just saying that it's more complicated than "ignorant people are ignorant". Banks are predatory as hell and take advantage of naive people. It's not right and people need advocates, because the banks sure as hell have people advocating for them.
 
Oh, I already agreed to that. I don't like the banks at all either and they definitely need more regulation. But I'm still not going to feel sorry for the people who get taken advantage of as it's still at least partly (and a majority IMO) their fault for not doing their due diligence. But that's just me, and as I said earlier, I'm just not a sympathetic person in general.

And again, as long as people only take out loans they can easily afford the payments, and only when they have a sufficient nest egg saved up and have a reasonably secure job, they're unlikely to get foreclosed on regardless of whether it's a ARM loan etc. They may lose more money than they could have, but if they are living under their means and have savings and a good job they'll likely never have to worry about losing the home.

The key is more being conservative in how much loan you take relative to your take home pay and job security than it is being an expert on all the specific terms.
 
[quote name='dohdough']And for all the bitching about "being responsible," good for freaking you. Now you don't need to take that loan and won't have a hit in your credit rating that'll follow you the rest of your life, which would probably also prohibit you from buying another home. But hey, fuck those poor fuckers right?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. If there were any justice in the world predatory lenders would need to give back all the money they made, so the people they preyed upon could keep their homes.

This is a very imperfect solution but I'd rather taxpayer dollars go to some folks who got legitimately bamboozled then the banks.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh, I already agreed to that. I don't like the banks at all either and they definitely need more regulation. But I'm still not going to feel sorry for the people who get taken advantage of as it's still at least partly (and a majority IMO) their fault for not doing their due diligence. But that's just me, and as I said earlier, I'm just not a sympathetic person in general.

And again, as long as people only take out loans they can easily afford the payments, and only when they have a sufficient nest egg saved up and have a reasonably secure job, they're unlikely to get foreclosed on regardless of whether it's a ARM loan etc. They may lose more money than they could have, but if they are living under their means and have savings and a good job they'll likely never have to worry about losing the home.

The key is more being conservative in how much loan you take relative to your take home pay and job security than it is being an expert on all the specific terms.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but anyone reading your post can tell that you are intelligent and well-educated. You understand how loans work but I can't imagine that the average man understands interest rates, adjustable morgages, points, balloon morgages, jumbo loans etc.
 
Exactly, I mean I've had a few business classes and understand the basics pretty well, but it gets complicated fast. Yes it would be great for people to educate themselves first, but that takes time and an understanding of where to even start. And frankly I think it's made complicated on purpose, banks would rather people not know exactly what they're getting into because knowledge is power and they'd rather have all the power. Banks pray on the naive, and even though I agree people should look into things and read what they're signing, most banks don't seem to care to explain it all that much. Frankly home buyers need someone who is on their side to help them through the process, and the person handling the loan isn't on anyone's side but their own.
 
[quote name='Clak']Exactly, I mean I've had a few business classes and understand the basics pretty well, but it gets complicated fast. Yes it would be great for people to educate themselves first, but that takes time and an understanding of where to even start. And frankly I think it's made complicated on purpose, banks would rather people not know exactly what they're getting into because knowledge is power and they'd rather have all the power. Banks pray on the naive, and even though I agree people should look into things and read what they're signing, most banks don't seem to care to explain it all that much. Frankly home buyers need someone who is on their side to help them through the process, and the person handling the loan isn't on anyone's side but their own.[/QUOTE]

I live in a progressive county and the county gives firsttime homebuyers a tax credit for attending a course and getting educated on everything from loans to inspections. More then anything else we've got to shift power back to regulators and empower the average person through policy. A laissez-faire market cannot be trusted.
 
I don't know if we've got anything like that here, maybe the local community college has something, but that would probably be it.
 
That sounds like a great program. I'm all for programs to help people get informed for sure.

Some of the basics really need covered in some senior level high school finance class that covers basic finances like budgeting, credit cards, etc.
 
High Schools have so many roadblocks and so little money they can barely afford to teach basic education.

This isnt a shot at you dmaul as I well respect your opinion but that statement is almost laughable considering that were the course would be the most effective is the same place where the government has let dozens of schools close and fired everyone who doesnt teach Math, Science, English and Gym.

Detroit alone graduates 1 out of every 10 or so kids and you know how they decide to help? By closing 10 schools. They were even talks of a program that would increase class sizes (due to the school closing) to 50 for every one teacher. 50!?!?!?!

Education is the key to America's future..period but it is and always has been clear that America doesnt give a fly fuck about education.
 
I don't know if it's still the same as it was as I was in high school as it's been 14 years since I graduated.

But my final year I had to take a bunch of pointless electives, and even retook one class for fun, because I already had more credits that I needed to graduate and really only need the senior level english and math classes that you couldn't take until that year.

So I don't see how it would be hard to spend half a year on basic finances in something like the senior year civics class even in broke school districts. It doesn't have to be an extra course or require any extra resources as you can just tweak the curriculum in an existing course like civics or accounting or whatever is the most appropriate fit to squeeze in a couple months of basic finances in the existing course lineup.

And I disagree that it's only (or even most) beneficial in the poor districts. Lack of knowledge about finances hits across all races and class groups. It's just not something that's taught in standard curriculum in high school, or even college, so most people don't know much about loans before getting ready to buy a home. Most everyone is in the same boat of having to seek out information on their own when they get to that point. Of course a difference is that impoverished people are less educated and thus less able to research things on their own, as well as having more obstacles like maybe not having broadband at home, money to buy books on homebuying or to pay for a class at the local community college etc.
 
Dog whistle for what? The ability of those with capital to manipulate those without/with-not-as-much? If this was really about "personal responsibility," then people getting these loans should not be an issue because they will be dealing with the consequences of a bad credit history. What you're advocating for is for those that Really caused this mess to still be compensated for their screw ups. People taking loans didn't fuck everything up; people giving them did.
Click to expand...

I realize that your persecution complex means that lenders were going around and forcing people into loans against their will, but it's a fantasy man. If you take a loan, you take it on your own discretion. If you're misled about the terms of the loan, that's a different matter entirely.
Before I bought my house I ended up taking in one of my neighbors because he took on an ARM that got out of hand. I swear there's no pun in that. Anyway, he realized that he took a gamble and after losing the house he knew it was his fault for defaulting. His monthly payment went from $700 or so to just short of $3k in less than 4 years. He was already well into trouble by the time he tried to refinance. Average middle class white dude too.


Uhhh...right...I'm the racist for pointing out someone else's racism. We've had this discussion before. Just because I took a 3 week vacation doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

See above, anecdotal story about average white guy that I'm obviously blaming for being a poor black guy who overbought on the house. It's a nice attempt, but not everything I say is fueled by my blatant hatred for your race.


Actually, it's extremely ideal. The people get to keep their homes and the banks get their money. It's far better than giving all the money to the banks and hoping that they'll spread it around like we did initially.
Click to expand...

In my proposal, people stay in their homes and the bank gets their money without any goofy loan that continues to prop up a false housing bubble that dates back to the mid 90's. I'm all for helping out the little guy, but in this case it isn't necessary. Better regulation earlier on would have averted a good half of the mess (see Canada) but that didn't happen so we have to deal with current reality.
Giving all the money to the banks in the 1st place wasn't the right idea either. If Chase (or whoever it was earlier in the thread) says they're in the foreclosure business and not the loan modification business, they should be chastised for that and brought into line. Of course if the guy feels that the risk involved in a foreclosure is a better solution than re-writing a loan he's a fucking moron. Legislate a tax code where "the banks" can't write off foreclosure losses and you instantly solve that issue.
 
[quote name='nasum']I realize that your persecution complex means that lenders were going around and forcing people into loans against their will, but it's a fantasy man. If you take a loan, you take it on your own discretion.[/QUOTE]
Will can be manipulated. Decisions can be coerced. Perfect information does not exist and neither do rational actors. What chance does a layman really have against a sleazy car salesman or a corrupt police officer or a predatory loan officer? They do their thing all day everyday. Agency(choice/the ability to act) is worthless.

If you're misled about the terms of the loan, that's a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...
Who says that people weren't? And who said that people were offered more credit than they should've been? And who's saying that there wasn't a *wink wink nudge nudge* when loan officers were "selling" loans? Frankly, a lot of this shit happened. He'll, I bet someone tried to sell you a loan that you couldn't afford and that's the point. Just because you're educated on the minutae of your loan package doesn't mean that everyone is. Hell, I forgot more about races issues than you, bob, and knoell ever knew, but I don't expect you to know as much as I do.

Before I bought my house I ended up taking in one of my neighbors because he took on an ARM that got out of hand. I swear there's no pun in that. Anyway, he realized that he took a gamble and after losing the house he knew it was his fault for defaulting. His monthly payment went from $700 or so to just short of $3k in less than 4 years. He was already well into trouble by the time he tried to refinance. Average middle class white dude too.

See above, anecdotal story about average white guy that I'm obviously blaming for being a poor black guy who overbought on the house. It's a nice attempt, but not everything I say is fueled by my blatant hatred for your race.
Click to expand...
First off, don't presume to know what my race is. You also don't have to hate someone's race to do or say something racist.

Secondly, despite your cute anecdote, it does not change the fact that poor people of color have taken most of the blame for this issue. If anything, your anecdote is closer to who a majority of the victims are. "Predatory lending" is NOT a dog whistle. "Urban" is. "Welfare Queen" is. "Inner-city" is. "Real American" is. And now that I've enlightened you to these things, I should expect you to not act ignorant about these things, but we both know how this works, so you shouldn't expect people that were manipulated into these predatory terms, like your neighbor, to magically know everything either despite his "gamble."

In my proposal, people stay in their homes and the bank gets their money without any goofy loan that continues to prop up a false housing bubble that dates back to the mid 90's. I'm all for helping out the little guy, but in this case it isn't necessary. Better regulation earlier on would have averted a good half of the mess (see Canada) but that didn't happen so we have to deal with current reality.
Giving all the money to the banks in the 1st place wasn't the right idea either. If Chase (or whoever it was earlier in the thread) says they're in the foreclosure business and not the loan modification business, they should be chastised for that and brought into line. Of course if the guy feels that the risk involved in a foreclosure is a better solution than re-writing a loan he's a fucking moron. Legislate a tax code where "the banks" can't write off foreclosure losses and you instantly solve that issue.
Click to expand...
See, this is your problem: you can't magically undo all the damage that's been done just by ending programs or increasing regulations. The issues that are a result of the damage still exist eventhough some of the ability to perpetuate some of those problems have been mitigated. You need targeted programs that deal with current issues. This is also why your colorblindness argument falls flat: it doesn't address current issues due to race.

Extending loans means even MORE money to the banks. This is the epitome of what isn't ideal in what you propose. Harping about needing more regulation in the day would've been more helpful, but Republicans have an odd fetish for removing them. Hell, we can't even prosecute the heads of banks because what they did wasn't illegal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Just because you're educated on the minutae of your loan package doesn't mean that everyone is. [/QUOTE]

But again, I don't think many people lose their homes due to the "minutae" of their loan packages.

All that really matters is whether you can afford the monthly payment. You don't have to be a financial wiz or knowledgeable about loan details to ask yourself questions like?

Can I easily afford this monthly payment based on my take home pay?

Do I have enough savings to weather at least a 6 month period of unemployment?

Is my job secure enough and/or my skills marketable enough that I can be fairly confident of being able to afford the payments over the loan period?

As long as you keep all those things in mind, you wont end up taking out too big of a loan. You may get screwed on terms and end up paying more for your home in the long run than you could have, but you probably won't get foreclosed on barring a major disaster in your life. And again that's just a risk you have to be willing to take if you're going to take a loan for a purchase.
 
d to the d - I'm not presuming, you chastised me months ago about something and mentioned being "living the race card" or something to that effect. I'm just reading between the lines.

So what's really different between these two:
Renegotiated loan between consumer and lender, both parties get a good thing (stay in house and continue to get paid for the loan).
No negotiation on terms of loan that already is out of the reach of the consumer, lender receives "free money" to a certain amount and as long as the consumer can finish the terms of the loan then nothing changes.

Seems like your little guy still has the ability to get horribly screwed in option 2. For one thing, the loan doesn't change. Even with "free money" the consumer has already proven that they CANNOT fucking pay for it. So you get a $35k (average per article, up to $50k) break for a little bit. What's your non-rational acting typical american (real or otherwise) moron slob going to do with that? They'll go buy a corvette and say fuck all to the house which compounds the issue down the road when the consumer doesn't get the term completion of the loan.
At that point the consumer is double fucked and the bank is double unfucked as they've received this "free money" and they still get to foreclose the property and begin the loan process all over again with another consumer.

But hey, I just think blacks caused this mess and my white suburban anger at that leads me to oh fuck it, the joke isn't even funny anymore and you continuing to push it as a reality is just sad. I'm talking math and finance and you're blaming me for pre civil war social policy that predates any member of my family setting feet on american soil by a good 80 years.
 
[quote name='nasum']d to the d - I'm not presuming, you chastised me months ago about something and mentioned being "living the race card" or something to that effect. I'm just reading between the lines.[/QUOTE]
You mean reading between the lines with your white-colored glasses/lenses. If I recall correctly, you said people are always puling out the race card and I said that they live the race card. People just assume that I'm black because I talk about the black experience in regards to racism most of the time. I could easily discuss anti-Asian/Latino/Natice American racism if I wanted to, but most people understand black better. When racism against other races/ethnic groups come up, I talk about those as well.

People thinking I'm black has more to do with other peoples prejudices/racism than my advocacy.

So what's really different between these two:
Renegotiated loan between consumer and lender, both parties get a good thing (stay in house and continue to get paid for the loan).
No negotiation on terms of loan that already is out of the reach of the consumer, lender receives "free money" to a certain amount and as long as the consumer can finish the terms of the loan then nothing changes.

Seems like your little guy still has the ability to get horribly screwed in option 2. For one thing, the loan doesn't change. Even with "free money" the consumer has already proven that they CANNOT fucking pay for it. So you get a $35k (average per article, up to $50k) break for a little bit. What's your non-rational acting typical american (real or otherwise) moron slob going to do with that? They'll go buy a corvette and say fuck all to the house which compounds the issue down the road when the consumer doesn't get the term completion of the loan.
At that point the consumer is double fucked and the bank is double unfucked as they've received this "free money" and they still get to foreclose the property and begin the loan process all over again with another consumer.
Click to expand...
I never said that the owner isn't screwed. I implied that they were screwed less because extending the payments would mean more interest unless the terms were modified so that extending the length would not increase payments. Which is something you didn't say initially. The terms of the government loan could also be that payments are made directly from the government to the mortgage without passing through the hands of the owner. Pretty simple actually.

But hey, I just think blacks caused this mess and my white suburban anger at that leads me to oh fuck it, the joke isn't even funny anymore and you continuing to push it as a reality is just sad.
Click to expand...
What I described is the common narrative. Don't get butt-hurt at me because you happen to be white and white people have pushed it. Maybe you should start telling other white people to stop being racist and pushing that bullshit instead of targeting me cause I point it out. But hey, if lumping all black people(notice how I didn't use "blacks" or "the blacks") together into one homogenous group is good enough for whites, then grouping all whites into one homogenous group is good enough for me. Funny how that works out, isn't it?

I'm talking math and finance and you're blaming me for pre civil war social policy that predates any member of my family setting feet on american soil by a good 80 years.
Click to expand...
No, that's your white persecution complex coming through. I don't blame you for being white because whites enforced slavery. I blame you for your refusal to acknowledge that you still greatly benefit from that legacy and your refusal to see how everything you say is shaped by that lack of acknowledgement. There's a term for it: white privledge.

Oh...and this is why your argument is dumb:
tumblr_lfnkugNFXy1qa4ff3o1_500.gif
 
It's a nice assumption in your cartoon there, but it's not quite correct.

I'm quite certain you were trying to be clever, but when you pointed out that you didn't use "blacks" you ended up using whites in the same narrative. It was cute. Now you've made one critical statement however, that being the common narrative. We can circle around this one all we want but it's the thing that will always be in the way of us being great pals. Your common narrative is that white people think black are inferior and continue to do so. The reality is that maybe
 
While convential racism is almost dead in mainstream America, exploiting the poor (of which minorities are a disproportionately large part of) is alive and well, and sometimes only encouraged by the fact that there is a large percentage of minorities. People engaging in the exploitation don't think they're inferior from a baseline racial/ethnic level. They think they're inferior because they think of them as dumb, and they're dumb because they're black/hispanic/non-English speaking. Having worked in sales for a decade, I can't tell you the amount of times I've seen lower income people get unbelievably screwed just because the salesperson thinks they can put one over. The thought process is, "You don't understand what I'm talking about but you need what I have? Well that means I can get the benefits without any objections."
 
[quote name='nasum']It's a nice assumption in your cartoon there, but it's not quite correct.

I'm quite certain you were trying to be clever, but when you pointed out that you didn't use "blacks" you ended up using whites in the same narrative. It was cute. Now you've made one critical statement however, that being the common narrative. We can circle around this one all we want but it's the thing that will always be in the way of us being great pals. Your common narrative is that white people think black are inferior and continue to do so. The reality is that maybe
 
[quote name='nasum']
You're like the best troll here anyways. By your third post in any thread we may as well retitle the thread to "Another Anti-Racism Thread By Dohdough Where He Calls White People Cunts" because it's what you do EVERY TIME.[/QUOTE]

So true!
 
Yet again, the government tries to solve problems by throwing more money that we don't have just to kick the can further down the road and creating a moral hazard assuring that the same problems will happen again and again.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
 
[quote name='dopa345']Yet again, the government tries to solve problems by throwing more money that we don't have just to kick the can further down the road and creating a moral hazard assuring that the same problems will happen again and again.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson[/QUOTE]

Well that is really taking out of context to the point that I want to punch you in the face for even trying. It reminds me of idiots to discuss affirmative action in the same way.

As Dmaul point was (although he is much to nice to put it this way) you are either fucking stupid or embarrassingly naive to think the vast majority of these people are degenerate scumbacks who are sitting around collecting government handouts.

These people are not trailer park hood banging mexican slumdogs. They are people who were making it and got let go from work and then their wife/husband got let go also. Or their kid got sick, their parents died, the value of their home dropped from 140 to 20. They had a 6 month nest egg but it shockingly took 12 months to find another job. I am sure it beyond your comprehension that their are a millions of people who woke up today with a bump that wasnt there yesterday...and in a few months they will find out its cancer.

It comes down to this...most people have the inability to account for the unlimited amount of scenarios that exist in the world and they foolishly pigeonholed everything into 2 nice and neat boxes. Black and white, rich and poor, us vs them.

The best quote in this thread was something like "The difference between you and them is a medical emergency"

I can only pray that you never have to wake up and account for something you could have never imagined.


There are ways of making this work that will benefit everyone if people who simply sit down and logically hash it out. This is why I hate republicans, democrats, fuck bush fuck obama...everyone has these scared cows that they just cant give up on so nothing ever truly gets fixed or works for the better. I am so sick of talking heads....I dont care if you are white or black, rich or poor...go into a room, sit down and come back with a real solution for once. The mayor of Detroit has 2 weeks to finalize the budget and he storms out of the room and refuses to come back......yea...thats good government right there.
 
[quote name='nasum']You're like the best troll here anyways. By your third post in any thread we may as well retitle the thread to "Another Anti-Racism Thread By Dohdough Where He Calls White People Cunts" because it's what you do EVERY TIME.[/QUOTE]

Addendum: Maybe because racism is so prevelant and ingrained in our society that anything less than overt individual racism is dismissed by those that benefit the most from it. Pointing out racism in your ideology doesn't make me a troll. Throwing up strawmen like you do makes you the troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top