Delinquent Homeowners to Get Mortgage Aid from Obama Administration

reply to post by beefsteaktwin


too funny

really now speaking for god now are you thats hilarious.

and it stops here we both off topic

feel free to have the last word.

hey tell god i said hello whats up next time you talk.

Not everyone who has been having problems has been living beyond their means and not everyone has the option of moving somewhere else either. Our house is modest, $80,000, and we have been having problems for a while now. My husband has a traumatic brain injury and is extremely limited as to the type of work he is capable of performing. This has to do with decision making skills and the ability to see how something works or goes together and then making the pieces go together correctly(like what you have to do to work a puzzle). He works in a factory in one of the few areas he is able. He used to work in an area that paid more, but the company had to downsize so he was moved to a lesser paying job. He has seniority and great attendance. I work part-time at a preschool as a teacher's aide. We have two children in school. Money is so tight now that we live check to check. We shut off our sattalite TV over two years ago to save money, we have one running vehicle, and a lot of medical bills and prescriptions. We don't qualify for any aid except our children get a state medical card. I will not apologize to anyone for my kids receiving it either! We both pay taxes and have probably paid for our share throughout the good years anyway. AND we are not lazy!! We both work in spite of our own disabilities(I have a leg injury from an auto accident-pins and plates hold it together) I've been looking for full-time work for over a year and guess what? Even with a college education, there isn't any. Not even part-time. A couple of jobs I applied for went to young newly graduated people. I'm sick of being made to feel like we are evil because we are needy. Have you ever grocery shopped for a family of four with $35.00/week? I buy one decent meal per day. For the other two, it's every man for himself. Fortunately, I can't eat much(gastric banded a few years ago). My lesser portion allows my son and husband more food. On a good week, hubby might get some overtime, then we eat better. People need to wake up to the reality. I think everyone should have to try to live at poverty level for a few months. You gain a whole new respect for people less fortunate.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


you sure about that?

just wondering from what i understand fanny and freddy and mres owns 95% of all home mortages in this country.

fanny and freddy are owned by the us government and those same people who created fanny and freddy also created mres and they all go around buying and selling those contracts.

of course all with the governments nodd.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

you sure about that?

just wondering from what i understand fanny and freddy and mres owns 95% of all home mortages in this country.

fanny and freddy are owned by the us government and those same people who created fanny and freddy also created mres and they all go around buying and selling those contracts.

of course all with the governments nodd.

Ok, let's say that is true! Fanny and Freddie do own much of the mortgages, from what I understand.

So then why is it that the borrowers still pay for PMI insurance to protect the "government" lenders? So even if the government has all the mortgages, the people pay to protect them from default and still get shafted by predatory lending. The loan just ends up with the government protected by PMI insurance coverage!

SO THE PEOPLE PAY NO MATTER WHAT!

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Link: Bill Clinton's Role in the Mortgage Crisis

Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

Billionaire Sanford I. Weill, who according to Louis Uchitelle made "Citigroup into the most powerful financial institution since the House of Morgan a century ago," has what I call the Wall of Me leading to his office, which he has decorated with tributes to him, including a dozen framed magazine covers. A major trophy is the pen Bill Clinton used to sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a move which allowed Weill to create Citigroup. Fittingly, Citigroup is a major contributor to guess which current Democratic Presidential candidate?

PBS Link: The Long Demise of Glass Steagall

You need to look at history a little closer.

Bill Clinton started the current chaos.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


i cant argue with that.

one way or the other we pay

Originally posted by Komaratzi11
Not everyone who has been having problems has been living beyond their means and not everyone has the option of moving somewhere else either. Our house is modest, $80,000, and we have been having problems for a while now. My husband has a traumatic brain injury and is extremely limited as to the type of work he is capable of performing. This has to do with decision making skills and the ability to see how something works or goes together and then making the pieces go together correctly(like what you have to do to work a puzzle). He works in a factory in one of the few areas he is able. He used to work in an area that paid more, but the company had to downsize so he was moved to a lesser paying job. He has seniority and great attendance. I work part-time at a preschool as a teacher's aide. We have two children in school. Money is so tight now that we live check to check. We shut off our sattalite TV over two years ago to save money, we have one running vehicle, and a lot of medical bills and prescriptions. We don't qualify for any aid except our children get a state medical card. I will not apologize to anyone for my kids receiving it either! We both pay taxes and have probably paid for our share throughout the good years anyway. AND we are not lazy!! We both work in spite of our own disabilities(I have a leg injury from an auto accident-pins and plates hold it together) I've been looking for full-time work for over a year and guess what? Even with a college education, there isn't any. Not even part-time. A couple of jobs I applied for went to young newly graduated people. I'm sick of being made to feel like we are evil because we are needy. Have you ever grocery shopped for a family of four with $35.00/week? I buy one decent meal per day. For the other two, it's every man for himself. Fortunately, I can't eat much(gastric banded a few years ago). My lesser portion allows my son and husband more food. On a good week, hubby might get some overtime, then we eat better. People need to wake up to the reality. I think everyone should have to try to live at poverty level for a few months. You gain a whole new respect for people less fortunate.

My dear, I am very sorry to hear your struggles, my heart is open to you and your family, there are many

Americans who are praying for people just like you. I was shot and killed in France at the age of 15, before I was

brought back to life I met the good lord and he has never left the inside of my head or heart.There are many good

groups out there that would love to help you and your family, if it ain't christian group there is another group that

will feel great joy in making you feel wonderful, full and loved. I am thinking of you and my sense tells me things

will get easier for you soon enough, please release the burden in your heart, even if is for a short spell.

reply to post by Section31

I think it's best in all fairness to post more info than just that! There's more to it than "Clinton and Frank did it all!".

In December 1986, the Federal Reserve Board, which has regulatory jurisdiction over banking, reinterprets Section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act, which bars commercial banks from being "engaged principally" in securities business, deciding that banks can have up to 5 percent of gross revenues from investment banking business. The Fed Board then permits Bankers Trust, a commercial bank, to engage in certain commercial paper (unsecured, short-term credit) transactions. In the Bankers Trust decision, the Board concludes that the phrase "engaged principally" in Section 20 allows banks to do a small amount of underwriting, so long as it does not become a large portion of revenue. This is the first time the Fed reinterprets Section 20 to allow some previously prohibited activities. In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. The vote comes after the Fed Board hears proposals from Citicorp, J.P. Morgan and Bankers Trust advocating the loosening of Glass-Steagall restrictions to allow banks to handle several underwriting businesses, including commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds, and mortgage-backed securities. Thomas Theobald, then vice chairman of Citicorp, argues that three "outside checks" on corporate misbehavior had emerged since 1933: "a very effective" SEC; knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker is unconvinced, and expresses his fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public. For many critics, it boiled down to the issue of two different cultures - a culture of risk which was the securities business, and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking. In March 1987, the Fed approves an application by Chase Manhattan to engage in underwriting commercial paper, applying the same reasoning as in the 1986 Bankers Trust decision, and in April it issues an order outlining its rationale. While the Board remains sensitive to concerns about mixing commercial banking and underwriting, it states its belief that the original Congressional intent of "principally engaged" allowed for some securities activities. The Fed also indicates that it will raise the limit from 5 percent to 10 percent of gross revenues at some point in the future. The Board believes the new reading of Section 20 will increase competition and lead to greater convenience and increased efficiency. In August 1987, Alan Greenspan -- formerly a director of J.P. Morgan and a proponent of banking deregulation -- becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. One reason Greenspan favors greater deregulation is to help U.S. banks compete with big foreign institutions. 1989-1990 Further loosening of Glass-Steagall In January 1989, the Fed Board approves an application by J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Bankers Trust, and Citicorp to expand the Glass-Steagall loophole to include dealing in debt and equity securities in addition to municipal securities and commercial paper. This marks a large expansion of the activities considered permissible under Section 20, because the revenue limit for underwriting business is still at 5 percent. Later in 1989, the Board issues an order raising the limit to 10 percent of revenues, referring to the April 1987 order for its rationale. In 1990, J.P. Morgan becomes the first bank to receive permission from the Federal Reserve to underwrite securities, so long as its underwriting business does not exceed the 10 percent limit. 1980s-90s Congress repeatedly tries and fails to repeal Glass-Steagall In 1984 and 1988, the Senate passes bills that would lift major restrictions under Glass-Steagall, but in each case the House blocks passage. In 1991, the Bush administration puts forward a repeal proposal, winning support of both the House and Senate Banking Committees, but the House again defeats the bill in a full vote. And in 1995, the House and Senate Banking Committees approve separate versions of legislation to get rid of Glass-Steagall, but conference negotiations on a compromise fall apart. Attempts to repeal Glass-Steagall typically pit insurance companies, securities firms, and large and small banks against one another, as factions of these industries engage in turf wars in Congress over their competing interests and over whether the Federal Reserve or the Treasury Department and the Comptroller of the Currency should be the primary banking regulator.

So you tell me...where did the repeal of Glass-Steagle begin?

Edit to add: This quote is from your Link.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by beefsteaktwin

 

too funny

really now speaking for god now are you thats hilarious.

and it stops here we both off topic

feel free to have the last word.

hey tell god i said hello whats up next time you talk.

You will not laugh when your damned soul is tortured son

You might hear god too if you weren't in the presence of the devil

it isn't too late, but your time is running out

reply to post by beefsteaktwin


Thank you so much for your kind words! You have no idea what it means to me. Bless you!

The biggest problem we have in this country is the "it won't happen to us" mentality. Most of us failed to put safety nets in for ourselves in case the worst happens. I didn't really see this til I got into the insurance business. Just because you can afford your lifestyle today, doesn't mean you wll be able to 10, 5 or even a year from now. No one knows what can happen to them or their livelihood. I've seen so many people that said they didn't need insurance right now and then lose everything in a tornado or the bread winner becomes disabled. Does't really matter who or what is to blame. Won't change the position you are left in. You are ultimately responsible for you and your family. Now I don't see anything wrong with government help as long as you contributed, but get on and off the assistance as fast as you can. The last place you wanna be is getting help from a government that is pretty much bankrupted,

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

you sure about that?

just wondering from what i understand fanny and freddy and mres owns 95% of all home mortages in this country.

fanny and freddy are owned by the us government and those same people who created fanny and freddy also created mres and they all go around buying and selling those contracts.

of course all with the governments nodd.

No Neo,

They hold the mortgages for about 50% of all mortgages

They have been involved in about 90% of the loans this year because the private market has clammed up.

But don't worry, Socialist Obama is going to phase it all out for you buddy, your private wet dream, tougher than Reagan even, you will be happy now??

The last time the housing market got this bad was the Great Depression. But some good came out of it. The Depression gave birth to the Federal National Mortgage Association in 1938, as well as the 30-year home loan.

Part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, the FNMA, commonly known as Fannie Mae, used government money to help fund mortgages and make homeownership affordable for lower-income Americans.

Now, more than 70 years later, the Great Recession may lead to the demise of Fannie Mae, its 41-year-old sibling Freddie Mac and the 30-year loan.

The Obama administration unveiled in February a plan to slowly dissolve the two struggling mortgage companies, thereby reducing the government's role in the mortgage market. Congress was left to decide how to make that happen.

Read more: Mortgage backers Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac reach historic crossroads - Whittier Daily News www.whittierdailynews.com...

This really pisses me off.

We didn't take a ridiculous loan.
We didn't max out our credit and do not spend outside our means.
Our bills are all paid on time, never delinquent.

Someone tell me why we should have to pay more taxes so
irresponsible #$%^s can have a reduced mortgage ????

Obama said "we all have to share in the blame"...

NO, Obama, we didn't do any of this and we shouldn't have to pay for it.

Every country wants my tax dollar, every corporation wants
my tax dollar, every irresponsible piece of trash wants my
tax dollar and I am sick to death of it...

reply to post by Janky Red


hmmm ok then tell people to stop blaming bush for the housing crisis which occurred more than a year ago.

with 2 failing organizations hold over 2 trillion of government back mortgages that are too big to fail

sounds good to me obama phasing them out that is,.

too bad obama will never phase them out.

This is where TARP should've went all along.

$700 billion to a few million people? Or $700 billion to a few dozen banks?

And when your house payment goes from $1600 to $3500 due to messed up adjustable rate hike. ..... What do you do????

I'm very surprised to read this. Because even in European countries with relatively liberal social security regimes (the UK, for example), the idea of paying down someone's mortgage with a government funded lump sum would be totally anathema. That's because government has a responsibility to taxpayers ... and I can't see any financial advantage to the taxpayer or government coffers with this proposed scheme at all.

In the UK the government can provide a contribution towards the interest on mortgages through the social security schemes for unemployed & sick people. For most that help is limited to 2 years. The government certainly don't pay anything towards your capital repayments. After the 2 years has elapsed, there's a possibility ... only that ... that the government, through the local council or housing association, might buy your home from you at market rates then rent it back to you.

This is just an observation. US homeowners have been blessed with low interest rates ... and stable interest rates ... for decades. In the UK, homeowners typically pay a couple of per cent over and above the Bank of England base rate and their payments go up and down as the base rate varies. In the early 1990's, when I bought my home, the interest rate on that property rose from 10.5% to 15.4% in one afternoon. I don't want to upset any US contributors, but if you can't afford your mortgage with interest rates at such a historical low, you probably shouldn't have bought your home in the first place.

This new White House proposal ? I'd be outraged if I were a US taxpayer, which mercifully I'm not.

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.

By freeloaders, you mean big business, right?

You do know that even welfare queens pay taxes, do you not? Every person regardless of income, is taxed, for we all consume. Every thing that welfare money buys is taxed, so who are these freeloaders again?

The biggest freeloaders are congress.

finance.fortune.cnn.com...

countrywide had a policy of not signing the notes as required by law, when they securitized them, well, the notes weren't delivered, and well by what I interpreted from that article above, they weren't the only bank doing this....
I got a feeling that the negligence on their part just may have reduced the value of most of the homes in the US!!! Since there's a big hole now when it comes to who reallly owns the note to all these mortgages! If I am right on that, then I am sorry, it isn't just the struggling homeowners who are behind on their payments that should be getting a writedown on their principle, it should be everyone holding a mortgage!! And well, if those who have paid in full, if it is found that the title is clouded by the banker's negligence, then they should be getting some monetary compensation. and of course, those investors that had bought these "grade AAA" securities that are backed by nothing, should be compensated for their losses....if that means that the "too big to fails end up having to sell all their assetts and declaring bankruptcy, well....oh, well.....

I'm just watching to see just how this pans out, if I don't like the way it is handled, I plan on hiring myself someone in the title inurance business just to look into the title of the house, and well, if he comes back and tells me that it's uninsurable because of all this crap....the banks getting the house back, with a note from me basically saying that hey, they broke it!! they've bought it... here's the house, I don't own you a dime, and well, if you chose to take me to court over it......well, then let's go!!! and I will try to get the house free and clear!!!
I plan on walking away without a mark on my credit even!!!

reply to post by neo96

it was the gov't that thought it was such a great idea to hide these worthless cdo's in fannie and freddie and get them off the bank's balance sheets!!!
the sick thing about it is that I am still seeing ads for no money down, low interest adjustable loans!!! go ahead and get rid of fannie and freddiie if you want, it ain't gonna help anything, since it isn't fannie and freddie that are the problem, and nothing has been done about the problem, and until they do something about the problem well, this country is screwed!!
heck even a good part of the problem with all the pension funds can be traced back to this, since wall street conned them into investing heavily into them....
we've had one big insurance company in virginia get put into recievership because they lost so much in this.
so, well, how deeply is the problem in the insurance business, don't know, but well, would explain why we are not all mandated to throw our money into health insurance!! and well, if there is a weather machine, turning it on full blast and leveling cities just might make a little sense, if the insurance industry too a good hit from this and are going under because of it, then they can say it's all those natural disasters, and not the one big disaster that the banks and wall street have caused!!!