Delinquent Homeowners to Get Mortgage Aid from Obama Administration

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
I see the problem you are having now. It's that you believe only half the population pays taxes. I suspect you are also misguided in your understanding of WHO it is who pays taxes at all.

It was an exaggerated guess.

Society cannot last long with freeloaders sucking off of taxpayers.

Eventually, the middle-class taxpayer bracket will just get up and leave.

You cannot tax people if there are none to tax.

Up and leave to where? American income tax is by far the lowest in the western world.

Why are you fighting with eachother?

Newsflash, you're both getting financially screwed, whichever side of the fence you're on.

Unless, of course, you happen to be a Charter Bank.

You know... the ones who created this whole mess and are currently walking away laughing with billions?

Good thing we are at each others throats about it, or we might make them repay the debts that they created.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Komaratzi11

 

Sadly, you're casting pearls before swine here. Most ATS posters seem to have the empathy levels of a warm can of pabst, and even less understanding of poverty, economics, or the current situation we're facing. Most of them have probably never actually suffered anything remotely resembling poverty, even second-hand. And the great majority would rather you and your family drop dead in an alleyway, than clutter their beautiful minds with such notions.

Yes


"Empathy level of a warm can of Pabst."

I have never before seen a more perfect reflection of the ATS right wing supporters.

You should have that line published

reply to post by neo96


Dear Neo,

I have read a number of your posts over the last few days, and I would kindly ask you to please move to the Ivory Coast, or a similar country where your views about survival of the fittest and stepping over the less fortunate are openly shared.

You act as if you support democratic and American ideals but what you really are arguing for is anarchy and rule of the strong. I know this is an open forum, but I just think that you would be much happier in a place that shared your views. The best case scenario would be if you had a time machine, and then you could travel back to feudal Europe to enjoy a real utopia.

I can understand, however, if you would be afraid to do this, because as apposed to America, which has created a system where not just a select few are allowed to live in comfort, a place that has openly embraced the ideals that you're arguing for has much less room for 'fortunate people' at the top. In the society you argue for, you might find yourself in a much less fortunate position.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by neo96

 

Once again you're living in this elitist fantasy.

People who were making 60k+ and gainfully employrd have lost their job, Neo.

They cannot pay their mortgage because they have no income. They once did, and could afford it..............now they can't. You can't just lump everyone into the category of "lazy and living above their means"

We moved to a more affordable house.

*shrugs*

You have to know when to hold them, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

Life is all about taking risks, and being responsible for the end results.

edit on 6/4/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Unless you're a bank and TARP can bail you out, right? Or are you the only supreme being in the Untited States?
Perhaps not... you're just superior to those who are losing their house. They're lazy and laughing while Obama uses your hard earned cabbage toward their mortgage.

Bah! They need to help all homeowners. Either force the banks to reduce everyones principal or have the government buy the mortgages and do it themselves. It makes no sense to kick someone out of their house when the new occupants (if they can find some) will be paying on a new mortgage what the existing homeowner probably could have afforded if he was offered the same deal.

The truth of the matter is that you can reduce the prinicipal of a 30 year mortgage by 30% and the lenders will still make 70-80% on the loan over the balance of the term. I don't really care if it is the goverment or the banks or the securizations who initiate this action but it needs to be done.

Since the government is the only one without a profit motive it would probably be left up to them to institue this program. Thius the gov would be buying all these mortgages from the banks and investors and turning around and refinancing directly with the homeowner. This would free up a huge amount of money which would now need to find a home. All homeowners would also benefit, fueling the economy and making these new investments pay off nicely for the investor class. There might be inflation but that would be tempered due to the banks smaller balance sheets.

It's an everyone wins scenario and the only reason I don't think anyone takes it seriously is because the people running this country don't want everyone to win. A pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me.

We all can win

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


I love your post!

I think you may be right, sadly. The US government has been a zero sum entity since FDR. The Gov. simply will not allow anyone to prosper unless someone else is suffering.

I think even Neo can agree to that. And he pours out warm Pabst!

Bottomline: If the "homeowners" cannot afford to pay their mortgage, they shouldn't be "squatting", err, staying in a home paid by us hard-work, tax-paying Americans. Heck! Maybe I should move right in with them and call it my home! After all, I sure could use a piece of that "American dream".

reply to post by pikypiky


Once again, you're missing the fine print.

If a mortgage company tells you your payment will be 400 a month, you say great.

Then they call back two months later and say 'did we say 400? We meant 600,' you say 'well, a little more than I'm comfy with but whatever, I still have 800 in equity in this house.

Add two more months and 'I realize we said 600, but we really meant 3500.' Is this the homeowner, who signed a fixed rate mortgage on a 150K house, only to watch both his equity and his ability to make his payment, or sell the house, disappear?

What a lazy bum, squatter!

Should've known better than to try and buy a house he could afford.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by felonius

 

There are 545 legislators in the Executive Branch. Ron Paul is not a silver bullet, nor is any One man. If, by some miracle that he were to be elected, what real power do you think he'd have, since he has no caucus?

Yeah. I know.

He's just the only one that has any clue to what F'd upness that is going on.

I just know that with the current path of the last few decades, we are sooooo screwed.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by pikypiky

 

If a mortgage company tells you your payment will be 400 a month, you say great.

Then they call back two months later and say 'did we say 400? We meant 600,' you say 'well, a little more than I'm comfy with but whatever, I still have 800 in equity in this house.

Add two more months and 'I realize we said 600, but we really meant 3500.' Is this the homeowner, who signed a fixed rate mortgage on a 150K house, only to watch both his equity and his ability to make his payment, or sell the house, disappear?

Thank you, I'm glad someone brought up the topic of variable interest rates. This was a tactic employed by the banks in a for profit maneuver to eventually end up with an individual's payments as well as their house.

Granted interests rates with high variability are never a good idea, but many people didn't realize what kind of entity they were up against or knew enough about variable interest rates.

Add this to the fact that a 'fixed' mortgage rate can also go up (technically the escrow portion does), or sometimes that according to the fine print a 'fixed' mortgage is only for the first few years or so, well... you get the idea

reply to post by spinalremain


while i do agree we have been screwed since fdr

like social programming i hate beer never aquired the taste.

and since the government owns fanny and freddy and mres and the government created the federal reserve who sets those rates of those mortages by regulations they already own those mortgages

most people fail to see those ones who are ripping people off is its own government they are the law creators and law enforcers.

reply to post by felonius


Transparency is the only way forward that doesn't end in violence or third world status.

If we, as a democratic body, start demanding a completely open government which is not allowed to hide a nickel, there may be hope.

As it stands, we really have no good, unbiased information about what we spend our money on, only that we all gotta keep working so we can pay off this debt.

I just bet that if we had a receipt for all our taxpayer purchases, there would be a hell of a lot more common ground between 'left' and 'right.'

An informed public is a dangerous public...

was not the bailouts supposedly to help out for this exact reason three odd years ago what another banker bailout with lies and sweet nothings that will help out less than one tenth of one hundreth percent of the population


does the insanity every stop

The government is only prolonging the problem by throwing money into it.

This government is becoming a wreckless joke.Obama is wreckless with his policies.This stuff going on over seas in the middle east is getting worse.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by The Old American

 

I love this "responsibility" meme.

Tell us, how "responsible" are you? Surely you are self-employed in a growth industry, sheltering yourself against both the economic downturn and the vagaries of workplace politics and bottom lines.

meme
   [meem]
–noun
a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.

As opposed to the "Friday" meme, I think the "responsibility meme" as you put it is one that should be spread as often and as far and wide as possible. Especially since the left so ignores it.

To your questions: No I'm not self-employed. I work for a company. Thus being responsible by holding a steady job.

And, of course, you own your own home rather than rent, since it's irresponsible to rent (never know when the place might get sold from under you, after all!). And of course, the home you own has no mortgage, and even if it did, you spent the years necessary to understand every stenciled scrap of legalese in such a document, and are crafty enough to wheel and deal with the banks on it - hypothetically, of course, since it's the height of irresponsibility to go into joint ownership on a big purchase like a home.

I don't own it yet. But I will when my mortgage is paid off. Renting isn't irresponsible. It's not the wisest decision to rent if you can own, but people do what they can when they can. Neither is a mortgage irresponsible, unless you can't afford it in the first place. Mortgage documents don't require years to understand. At least for people of average intelligence. It may have taken years for you, though.

Of course, you have a rock-solid pre-nup, and perform regular home and automotive maintenance. I would guess you have full health coverage, but the fact is, a responsible person like you has removed all potential risks from his home and workplace anyway, thus making health insurance redundant.

Regular home maintenance? Check.
Regular automotive maintenance? Check

It's not hard for me, as a lower middle-class American, to do. If I can do it, anyone can.

Right? Surely you've got all this down and are the unquestionable paragon of responsibility.

However, most people just aren't as awesome as you. While you, being the exceptional stud that you are, are self-employed in an industry unthreatened by the recession, most people have a boss and work in a job that is shrinking. Sucks to be them, of course.

I guess to you I am exceptional seeing as I take responsibility for my actions and decisions, right or wrong.

And we mere mortals are often at risk from diseases, lightning, poor drivers, and even the occasional tiger - Sadly, we're just not as thorough as you at removing all possible threats to our health.

Diseases? Check.
Lightning? Check. Yes I've been struck by lightning.
Poor drivers? Check.
Tigers? Not yet.

So, 3 out of those 4 I've not been able to dodge. But I still pay my bills.

While some of us are so foolish as to invest in health insurance, many simply can't afford it (remember, shaky jobs and bills to pay, 'cause they're irresponsible, after all) and those who can often lack options when the claim is denied and they are forced to pay from their own savings.

Invest or don't invest in health insurance. If you can't afford it, then you can't afford it. If you can, then buy it. How is this relevant? Oh, my bad. You're eventually going to come to a point.

So while I'm happy that you are so exceptional and amazing, the sad fact is, most of us haven't had the fine fortune and forethought you had from the day you climbed out of the womb and started day trading.

Day trading is too risky. Some people get off on that, but I like to live within my means. And I'm glad that my awesomeness pleases you. Too bad my type of awesomeness is dwindling because of entitlements.

I mean really, your case is sort of like Usain Bolt criticizing someone who gets eaten by a tiger for not running fast enough.

edit on 5/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

Actually, my case is like I'm lower middle-class, live on one income (mine), pay for my own college, pay my taxes, pay for health care for me and my family, and pay my bills on time while other people can't seem to.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


I can understand the desire for anonymity...being the internet and all, but I've heard of people making upwards of $200k/year considering themselves "middle class".

By your own admission and assuming you really are lower-middle class, putting you at anywhere between $40k and $60k, you're probably living paycheck to paycheck...if not then you make more than you realize. You, as a lower-middle class American, have a slightly better chance of falling out of the middle class (into the lower class -poverty range) than you do of moving up in it. If you were to get cancer for example, you would be screwed...health insurance or not. If you were to go into bankruptcy you'd still owe on your student loan, that doesn't go away.

The issue most 'liberals' have is essentially the desire for everyone to succeed...or at least have a greater ability to succeed. Once you fall into that poverty range your ability to move out of it is drastically reduced in this country. No country is perfect at this but we could be doing better.

Until recently there has been no requirement to allow sick days to employees in this country. That means your food server making $1.25 an hour would have to come in sick or lose money. There are volumes of information on the problems that the lower and lower middle class face in this country so I'm not going to spend much of any more time discussing this particular issue with you.

I reiterate my previous statement from page 3(?) that I'd rather see average citizens receiving the money than I would see it spent on the military, an inflated bureaucrats salary or multi-billion dollar corporate welfare.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by The Old American

 

I can understand the desire for anonymity...being the internet and all, but I've heard of people making upwards of $200k/year considering themselves "middle class".

By your own admission and assuming you really are lower-middle class, putting you at anywhere between $40k and $60k, you're probably living paycheck to paycheck...if not then you make more than you realize. You, as a lower-middle class American, have a slightly better chance of falling out of the middle class (into the lower class -poverty range) than you do of moving up in it. If you were to get cancer for example, you would be screwed...health insurance or not. If you were to go into bankruptcy you'd still owe on your student loan, that doesn't go away.

I make $41,200 as a yearly salary. I work 12 hour days, 4 days on 4 days off, which works out to 200 hours per year more than a 40 hour-a-week wage earner, so my actual salary compared to a $41,200 wage earner is a bit less (the company gets more work out of me than that other person). So, yes, I'm firmly entrenched in lower middle-class, clinging on a burning rope that's threatening to drop me down to upper lower-class (if there is such a thing).

I have a 13 year old, a wife, a mortgage, I pay around $300 a month just for health insurance for my whole family, medical bills, groceries (we can't afford to go out to eat), college tuition that I pay for out of my paycheck, credit cards (though not a lot of debt because, as a responsible person, the cards are only for large emergency purchases that we don't have cash for).

And yet, somehow, I'm able to keep up with my bills and not be out on the street asking for a hand out. And I haven't asked for one, and don't expect one. So, yeah, I don't have a lot of sympathy for these people losing their homes, and I sure as hell don't understand why I should be responsible for helping them out. I don't get any sympathy and don't want any. But I do what I have to for my family, and that's all I, or anyone, should be required to do. But the Progressives seem to have no problem taking what little I have left and giving it to others. How humanitarian and morally upright of them.

/TOA