|
|
In general the rule is that if the U.S. economy is doing well, the party in power -- the party occupying the White House -- is re-elected.
If our current economic state is any indication, the Republicans don't have a chance...or do they?
|
Posts:
13,395
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(337 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 29, 2008 4:31 AM
|
Rainy,
You mentioned this before too. Don't worry about it.
|
|
|
Posts:
35,442
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(336 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 29, 2008 2:40 AM
|
Mexico's economic inequality has led to an all out hot drug war. When the USSR broke up the ensuing recession led to the Mob and KGB going in cahoots with each other and terrible crime ever since. I am worried that our recession will unleash our criminals, the mob, the drug industry, etc. and with all of the states and cities having to cut funding because of lack of tax revenue, they'll get out of control. Mexico's situation is what we need to be en guard against, now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ju1bUO6Q8
Narco Wars- Mexico
|
|
|
Posts:
11
Registered:
9/8/08
|
|
(335 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 29, 2008 1:54 AM
|
|
Can we finally not have those damn credit card offers come in the mail every other day. I'm continually shredding them so some other dumb ass doesn't go thru my garbage and apply for me. That credit card shit, not to mention the endless home equity line of credit offers being pushed, must of had some sort of impact on this whole economic nightmare. Maybe, just one word sums this whole fiasco up, CREDIT. And I agree with Bill, get rid of that cocky lizard of gecco or whatever creature is on those nausiating car ins commercials.
|
|
|
Posts:
35,442
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(334 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 29, 2008 1:38 AM
|
Bush, Cheney, GOP appointees fuck up the bailout. Why would they trust the same lying, cheating, greedy bankers who caused the mess in the first place to do the right thing? EU created rules and guidelines for how their bailout money had to be spent. Duh. And WHY in the world would the Fed want to encourage the banks to buy up other banks which will compound the 'too big to fail' problem we're running into as it is??? We can't be rid of these men soon enough!
Bushwhacked!
Loans? Did We Say We?d Do Loans?
NY Times
Published: October 28, 2008
According to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the chief proponent of the big bank bailout, flooding the banks with taxpayers? money was supposed to get them to start lending freely again. And that, in turn, was supposed to stabilize the markets and prevent the downturn from being worse than it otherwise would be.
It was not entirely clear from the start exactly how Mr. Paulson would ensure that things would go that way. Indeed, earlier this month, shortly after the bailout was enacted, The Times?s Mark Landler reported that Treasury officials also wanted to steer the bailout billions to banks that would use the money to buy up other banks.
Now, lo and behold, with $250 billion in bailout funds committed to dozens of large and regional banks, it turns out that many of the recipients of this investment from taxpayers are not all that interested in making loans. And it appears that Mr. Paulson is not so bothered by their reluctance.
Mr. Paulson and the bailout recipients have some explaining to do. Congress should plan hearings as soon as possible ? and take action to set a clear strategy.
In his column on Saturday, The Times?s Joe Nocera told about a conference call that he had listened in on recently between employees and executives of JPMorgan Chase. Asked how an infusion of $25 billion of bailout funds would change the bank?s lending policy, an executive said the money would be used to buy other banks.
?I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way,? the executive said. He added that the money could also be used as a backstop in case ?recession turns into depression or what happens in the future.?
There was not a word about lending ? not to businesses or home buyers or car buyers or students or other consumers. Just the opposite. In response to another question, the executive said that the bank expected to continue to tighten credit.
JPMorgan Chase is not alone. The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that some regional-bank recipients of the bailout money had acknowledged that only a small portion would be used for loans and the rest for acquisitions and other purposes.
It is prudent for government officials to encourage healthy banks to acquire weak banks. Doing so prevents bank failures and avoids the taxpayer costs and economic disruption that accompany such collapses.
The problem is that the Treasury has refused to put conditions on the banks? use of the bailout funds, allowing them, in effect, to make purchases of banks that are not on the verge of failure. That could help to maximize the banks? profits ? a worthy goal when the capital they are using is from private investors.
However, when they?re using taxpayer-provided capital, as they are now, Congress and the public have every right to require that the money be used to benefit the public directly, even if doing so crimps the banks? profits. If Treasury won?t impose conditions, Congress must, including a requirement that banks accepting bailout money increase their loans to creditworthy borrowers and limit their acquisitions to failing banks, such as those listed as troubled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The bailout should not be an occasion for banks to make a killing.
An even bigger problem is that the bailout was sold as a way to spur loans. If that never was ? or no longer is ? the primary aim, Congress and the public need to know that. Lawmakers should not release the second installment ? $350 billion ? until they have answers and guarantees that the bailout money will be spent in ways that put the public interest first.
|
|
|
Posts:
35,442
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(333 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 29, 2008 12:44 AM
|
Perhaps it was overly optimistic to expect the same men, Bush, Cheney, Bush appointees, Paulson and Bernake ...would be able to figure out how to repair the financial disaster they allowed to happen?
What Jon Stewart well named the Clusterfuck to the Poor House continues. This economic crisis brought to you by the republican party.
Loan Giants' Takeover Hasn't Paid Off
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008; D01
Almost two months ago, the government sought to revive the nation's ailing mortgage sector by seizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and pumping money into the home-loan market. But so far, the measures have yet to achieve their intended effect.
Backed by taxpayers, the mortgage finance giants have spent billions in an attempt to push down loan rates and make it easier for people to borrow money to buy homes. But mortgage rates have gone up.
The Treasury Department has also started buying $10 billion in mortgage bonds issued by the companies, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that mortgage lenders have a ready stream of money to lend. But the effort has been offset by a global sell-off of these bonds.
And even though Fannie Mae, of the District, and Freddie Mac, of McLean, have taken steps to help thousands of people avoid foreclosure, some housing advocates say the companies are not doing enough to help others keep their homes.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila C. Bair has urged the companies and their regulator to be more aggressive in helping people avoid foreclosure, according to people familiar with the matter.
This shows how hard it is for the government, even with control of the companies, to overcome an adverse market and overhaul entrenched foreclosure practices.
The government has taken a number of steps to bring mortgage rates down through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The companies, which together own about $1.5 trillion in mortgages, are expected by the government to grow their portfolios by about $100 billion each over the next year. By pumping so much money into funding mortgages, the thinking goes, rates will decline and stabilize.
The day before the companies were taken over, interest rates on 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages averaged 6.34 percent. Yesterday, they averaged 6.56 percent, according to HSH.com, which surveys lenders. The figures have swung wildly over the past two months.
"It makes it very hard for consumers to have any sense of what's happening to interest rates," said Keith Gumbinger, HSH vice president. "There's not enough time between the move in interest rates and the consumer's ability to react to that." Doubts are growing among financial analysts and investors about whether the companies will be able to meet the government goal despite their best efforts.
To increase their portfolios, the companies borrow money. The problem is that they have been able to borrow only at higher rates because of investor anxieties over the credit markets generally and the fate of the companies specifically. This in turn has constrained their ability to borrow. The companies will issue $16.3 billion in debt this month, compared with $32.7 billion last month, according to Jim Vogel, an analyst at FTN Financial Capital Markets. That's the lowest level in at least eight years.
With borrowing costs so high, Vogel said, the companies may no longer be earning enough from mortgage investments to cover their costs. That means Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may find it more difficult to fund themselves.
"The market doesn't want to buy the debt of a gigantic financial institution that's funding its assets at a loss, regardless of how the U.S. government may or may not be standing behind them," he said.
Likewise, the government's plan to provide an additional source of money for mortgage bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be having negligible effects. Treasury has asked its investment managers, State Street and Barclays, to buy $10 billion of these bonds on its behalf.
One of the government's primary concerns before the takeover was that investors -- particularly in Asia, traditionally among the biggest buyers of U.S. mortgages -- were shedding the bonds out of fear that market demand for them would dry up.
But in the past two months, foreign investors have continued to dump the bonds. Foreign central banks' holdings of regular Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt and mortgage bonds have declined by about $60 billion, to $923.4 billion, as of last week, according to the Federal Reserve.
James B. Lockhart III, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, said the reason for the companies' heightened debt costs is that "people are trying to digest the changes that have been made worldwide over the last couple of weeks." He pointed out that the companies have taken other steps to prevent higher rates, such as canceling fees they charge to insure loans.
"The key thing to me is that Fannie and Freddie can and are continuing to fund themselves," he said. "I think there will be ups and downs. Over the long term, we're very hopeful that Fannie and Freddie can continue to supply the liquidity to the housing market." Lockhart has said one of the companies' objectives under government control is to help more people struggling to pay their loans hold on their homes. Usually, that happens by modifying the terms of loans to make them more affordable.
"We've been very active in encouraging loan modifications," Lockhart said. "We have told both enterprises they can do more."
But the companies have come under criticism for not doing more already. Fannie Mae has received the brunt. The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, which represents low- and moderate-income borrowers, plans today to rally hundreds of people at Fannie Mae headquarters to protest its foreclosure policies.
In a letter yesterday to Lockhart, NACA wrote that Fannie Mae, which controls 30 percent of the mortgage market, "has become the major roadblock in providing long-term solutions for the vast majority of at-risk homeowners."
NACA said Fannie Mae is too slow to restructure mortgages for people who are at risk but have not yet gone delinquent, balks too often at lowering the interest rate on loans, and refuses to write down mortgages and lower the amount borrowers owe.
Those are the types of steps IndyMac has taken under FDIC control. FDIC Chairman Bair, who's been an outspoken proponent of modifying mortgage loans, has been encouraging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take the same kind of steps, according to people familiar with her thinking.
Brian Faith, a Fannie Mae spokesman, said that in the past 10 weeks the company has launched reviews of 18,000 foreclosures. He said that, among other steps, the company has agreed to reduce the interest rate on certain loans for a time and provided other incentives to avoid foreclosures.
Bruce Marks, chief executive of NACA, said he met yesterday with Lockhart and came away encouraged. "They weren't going to commit, but they were receptive," Marks said.
In Connecticut, lawyers are taking steps to try to force Fannie Mae to be more generous to people at risk of losing their homes that could test the nature of the government's hold on the company.
Evelyn Colon, a single mother in Hartford, Conn., who has consistently paid her rental bills, was being evicted after Fannie Mae foreclosed on the owner. Fannie Mae said it would consider working with Colon to let her remain.
Greater Hartford Legal Aid sued, arguing that language in the recent economic rescue bill requires federal agencies to take steps to keep tenants in their homes.
"You have Fannie being controlled by the government trying to evict the same people," said Stephanie D'Ambrose, a Legal Aid lawyer.
|
|
|
Posts:
35,442
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(332 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 9:56 PM
|
Are republicans scared shitless because they know the exec branch is now such a dictatorship thanks to Bush/Cheney that Obama will inherit enough super powers to utterly foil their every rotten plan? I think so. Muah ha ha ha ha....![]:)](http://boards.hbo.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif)
I hope the paybacks are extremely painful!
The Next Prez's Superpowers
NEWS: Will a new president give back the authority that Bush and Cheney grabbed for the executive?
By David Cole
September/October 2008 Issue Mother Jones
As President Bill Clinton assumed office in January 1993, I held out great hope that the Immigration and Naturalization Service's long-standing effort to deport my clients?eight people arrested in Los Angeles in 1987 for distributing magazines for a faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization?might finally come to an end. We'd begun the case under President Reagan, and continued under the first President Bush. We had consistently prevailed in the federal courts, before judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. The fbi director had admitted that none of our clients had engaged in any criminal activities, and that they were arrested only for their political associations. Surely the new Democratic administration?where some of my best friends were going to work?would abandon this ill-conceived effort?
Hardly. Instead of dropping the case, the Clinton Justice Department took it all the way to the Supreme Court, where it obtained a favorable ruling written by none other than Justice Antonin Scalia. The Clinton administration also aggressively used secret evidence to seek the deportation and detention of numerous Arab and Muslim immigrants, despite repeated court rulings that such tactics violated the Constitution. And after the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which "streamlined" habeas corpus for all prisoners (accused terrorists or not), created a special court to remove "alien terrorists" (again using secret evidence), and made it a crime to provide "material support" to blacklisted groups, effectively resurrecting the McCarthy-era tactic of guilt by association.
So: While there may be many reasons to support Barack Obama, don't assume that a Democratic president will necessarily transform the counterterrorism policies of the current administration. Government officials do not as a rule like to give up power, and President Bush has grabbed plenty of power for the executive branch since 9/11. Democrats in particular often feel vulnerable to being portrayed as soft on crime or terrorism, and far too many tack to the right on these issues, as Clinton did. If the problem is to be fixed?and it is essential that we fix it?it will only be because of sustained and popular pressure for change.
Don't get me wrong. I hope a President Obama will be more attuned to civil liberties than Clinton was. And I have no doubt that Obama has historically been better than McCain in this arena. But the project is an enormous one. The list of Bush and Cheney's insults to the Constitution could go on forever, but the low points include:
* They authorized the use of what they call "enhanced interrogation techniques," and what the rest of the world knows to be torture.
* They asserted the right to lock up anyone anywhere in the world?even US citizens arrested at home?without a hearing, access to lawyers or the courts, or the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
* They dramatically expanded surveillance powers while bypassing judicial oversight, and ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans without warrants?flaunting a statute that made such conduct a federal crime.
* They kidnapped suspects and rendered them to countries with a track record of torture.
* They disappeared other suspects into secret cia black sites, where they were subjected to brutal interrogation tactics specifically authorized in White House meetings.
* They locked up in post-9/11 "preventive detention" more than 5,000 foreign nationals in the United States, virtually all of them Arab or Muslim?not one of whom stands convicted of a terrorist offense today.
* And they asserted that when the president "engages the enemy" as commander in chief, he is for all practical purposes above the law.
Thankfully, some parts of the Constitution remain, including the one limiting presidents to two terms.
There is reason to hope that we are ready for change. A growing consensus recognizes that the Bush administration's post-9/11 actions have not only compromised some of our most fundamental principles, but have actually made us less safe. They have made it nearly impossible to bring to justice some of the worst actors we have captured; rendered it more difficult for our allies to cooperate with us for fear that they will be tainted by our actions; and given Al Qaeda the best recruitment propaganda it could have imagined. Even President Bush admits that Guantanamo is a public relations disaster (he hasn't quite admitted that it is a human rights disaster), and should be closed. And the administration has had to retreat on its positions on torture, unchecked presidential power, the detention of enemy combatants, and the Geneva Conventions.
Then there is the Supreme Court, which has now ruled against the administration in all four of the "terrorism" cases in which it has issued an opinion since 9/11. It found?twice?that the Guantanamo detainees have a right to challenge the legality of their detention. It rejected the administration's claim that it could hold US citizens as enemy combatants without a hearing. It ruled that the Geneva Conventions govern the conflict with Al Qaeda, and that the military tribunals violated those conventions and US military law. And in its June decision in Boumediene v. Bush, the court for the first time ever ruled against the president and Congress acting together on a matter of national security and, in another first, extended constitutional rights to foreign nationals outside US territory. While we cannot pin our hopes on a court that is one justice away from becoming the most conservative in our history, this track record should give some backbone to those in the next administration who seek to turn the tide.
But the most important reason for hope is the remarkable job that civil society groups?from Human Rights First and the aclu to the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Center for Constitutional Rights?have done in standing up for the principles that characterize this country at its best. By bringing lawsuits, issuing reports, holding press conferences, and mobilizing members, they have given citizens opportunities for constructive engagement with one of the most important issues of our generation?what democracy will look like in the face of the threat of terror.
It was not always so. In the McCarthy era, for example, the aclu was more consumed with purging itself of Communists than defending civil liberties?and most of the other groups doing crucial work today didn't even exist.
Civil society, of course, is just a fancy term for "us." It is the citizenry, mobilized. And as Judge Learned Hand, perhaps the greatest judge never to be on the Supreme Court, once said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it...While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." The question is whether the audacity of this hope will give way to the politics of terror. The answer lies in us.
David Cole has represented several post-9/11 detainees, including Maher Arar, a Canadian who was rendered to Syria.
|
|
|
Posts:
35,442
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
|
Posts:
3,036
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(330 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 8:57 PM
|
> Grammyoffour,
>
> You know that Florida is one of the leading states
> for foreclosures. Lately I have been noticing that
> many mortgage brokers are going out of business.
>
> If they are proven as conspirators in Florida's
> mortgage frauds, can the out of business company be
> liable in a crime? Can they been sued?
>
Just about anybody can be sued. The problem is that even if you win, you may not collect anything.
You would likely have better luck suing the notary (just about all transactions involving real estate require a notary, don't they?) If the notary did anything wrong, you may be able to claim against the Notary's E&O policy, (Error and Omission, for those who are wondering) if there is one.
--
America is facing the worst financial crisis at least since the Great Depression! Ask yourself who you'd rather have in charge: A man with a 20-year history of helping the very rich become much richer?
Or a man with a 20-year history of helping those who are not rich avoid becoming poor?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,895
Registered:
10/21/07
|
|
(329 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 8:25 PM
|
Grammyoffour, ( my wishful, write-in candidate, for Paulson,) wrote,
> The real fact...this is the same number we quailified
> them with in the first place. Yes, many of them were
> stated or no income loans and only about the numbers
> quoted above were full doc. This is a bit more than
> what meets the eye.
>
> This is also a way to find the fraud inducing
> brokers. If the borrower who stated an income comes
> in for help they much VERIFY their income. If it is
> different than what the broker put on the submitting
> application...BUSTED...FEDERAL OFFENCE....LOST
> LICENSE...LOST BUSINESS...JAIL TIME...FEDERAL JAIL
> TIME...no funny business here...this is serious and
> also very needed.
_________________________________________
Grammyoffour,
You know that Florida is one of the leading states for foreclosures. Lately I have been noticing that many mortgage brokers are going out of business.
If they are proven as conspirators in Florida's mortgage frauds, can the out of business company be liable in a crime? Can they been sued?
--
Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.
Gloria Steinem,
September, 2008
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
10/27/08
|
|
(328 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 2:04 PM
|
Joe,
I will leave the answers to most of your very good questions to the experts, but will lay this on you, because I found it so mind boggling.
We never pay any of the principal on that ten trillion debt -- only the interest. We haven't paid any principal since Andrew Jackson was president.
One third of all income tax collected goes to 'service', ie pay the interest (interest only mind you), on that debt.
Soon, math people help me out on projecting exactly when, the monthly interest payment on the national debt will be more than the total we can collect in taxes. Then we can't borrow any more. But that borrowing IS the money supply.
One last thing, just in case you weren't ready to get out the pitchforks and torches yet. The money is owed to private banks that invented it out of thin air to begin with. The government could have invented it itself, as Abe Lincoln did, but we actually let someone else invent it, so we can borrow it.
Learning what "money" actually is causing me great pain. There are lots of books on it, generally only read by economists, but it is something we tax payers really need to understand, because I think it might be enslaving us.
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
10/27/08
|
|
(327 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 1:41 PM
|
1. Establish new-deal-like 'public work projects', but instead of financing them with defecit spending, bring back some form of Lincoln's Greenbacks, ie don't borrow the money from the fed, create it directly.
2. End the big oil dependency. Get serious about wind and solar. The infrastructure and physical implementation of this plan dovetail nicely with step one.
3. Stop the fear mongering. It was necessary to get the welfare for the wealthy (I mean 'bailout') bill passed. But, lets turn the lie machine on reassure, with caveats about responsible borrowing. People are buying guns and burying their money for cripes sake.
4. Reform the income tax system. (No really) Historically, the country was always much more prosperous without it. Smart, if controversial, guys like Ron Paul and Lyndon Larouche have been unfairly put in the nutjob box, but the constitutional intent was that it (income tax) only exist as a temporary measure in the face of great need, like a war. Not all conspiracy theories are completely false. At least study their suggestions.
5. The GWOT and Iraq are bankrupting us as Al Qaeda intended from the start ("We can't bring down the giant, but we can make him bring himself down"). Regardless of how rich certain defense contractors are getting, no matter who gets the Iraqi oil (China at this point? Iran?), we just can't afford to put those actions on the people's credit card any more.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,698
Registered:
7/9/08
|
|
(326 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 1:25 PM
|
Looking for some budget / math-strong individuals.
If our annual national budget is $2.5 trillion, and current national debt is $10.5 trillion, how do you pay down the debt?
How much interest are we paying, anyway (on average)? More or Less than 10%? How much over / under? Is it all annual interest (and no monthly)?
Let's stick with a round number.
10% of $10 trillion, annually, is:
1,000,000,000,000 ($1 trillion)
That's well over a third of our budget... IF we even pay all the interest on the debt.
What's the plan here? Cut spending? Cut WHAT exactly?
Spending = Programs
McCain said that current workers will no longer have the entitlements of current retirees (Debate #2, I think). So... what do you really mean? Just not tax for Social Security or Medicare / Medicaid, and let the citizens handle their own problems? And if that fails?
This isn't a business you run into the ground, firing employees each quarter, while selling-off its assets until you exit-stage-left with a golden parachute. This is government, and it cannot afford to Boom and Bust.
And, that doesn't address debt resolution, or is that not a practical concern in this lifetime? I get that McCain and his Peers are really old and will never have to wince when a bill comes due, for the rest of THEIR lives, but what's the PLAN for the rest of the COUNTRY? How do you pay the debt? More Taxes?
Conservative fear, "Obama's plans are to raise nearly every fucking tax there is." And McCain wants to cut them. Which is worse? Which will ensure debts go unpaid, to provide a short-term Perception of wealth in exchange for a long-term decline in services, influence, and credit?
A spending freeze? Not cutting programs staffing costs (can't talk about lost jobs), just rendering them unable to function due to freezing operational needs, like travel and supply costs... The budget is a mandate, not a blank check. When Government stops spending money this month, they have to spend twice as much next month. There is no withholding money from year to year, in the eyes of Congress.
But let's say it's possible, to not spend according to a Congressional mandate... How will this HELP the economy? Those supplies and travel costs, are purchased from FREE MARKET vendors. The government is paying it's citizens for materials and resources... Or contracting for ENTIRE programs. Instead, we starve the economy MORE?
*sigh* TV News Shows now feature Financial / Debt Advisors. What do they tell us? Cut spending (programs). Increase income (taxes). And, Negotiate with creditors.
Anybody try this yet? Is Bush on the phone with American and Foreign creditors asking for forgiveness of current principle (due to mountains of interest already paid), or leniency on outstanding interest (in order to ensure eventual pay back and prevent default)? Can't we suffer a hit to our Pride, and the very real possibility of shortening our credit as a nation - in the near term - in order to meet our obligations and return some symblance of sanity to our government? Or, are we just gonna pay until we physically and spiritually collapse, as individuals and a society?
Can ANYBODY answer these questions? Please?
|
|
|
Posts:
398
Registered:
9/16/08
|
|
(325 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 9:20 AM
|
AND at the risk of being the bearer of bad news...just so you know...this is all just the tip of the iceburg. The big number of the Adjustable loans that are taking down the real estate market...they really hit in huge numbers in 07' so they still have 3 or 4 year before those borrowers can't make their payments, unless they loose their jobs.
The numbers for September sales are homes repurchased by banks, sold to private investors at about 40 cents on the dollar. This is false security used to assist in McCains campaign also.
We are only about 30% in to real numbers of foreclosure. We truly have until 2011 or 12 before we see the last of them from this go round.
If you are a buyer...don't buy yet, it still is going to fall a lot more. If you are a seller and can not wait, take any offer given, if you don't the bank can sue you for not taking a valid offer. If you don't get an offer and it is too stressful for you. Send your key to your mortgage holder and assign all interest to them. They don't need to spend more money that way taking it from you and it stops the pain. (somewhat). If you can hold out, do...you'll loose much less if you can wait. If you are afraid you will miss the market for your new home. Rent the old one and buy the new one if possible but you'll pay too much and you'll loose value, renters always lower the value becasue it's not theirs, they don't want you there and they don't want to talk to you more than necessary (1st of month)...stay put and wait.
You really have a few more years, it will come back, much slower this time; and that's good for everyone.
|
|
|
Posts:
398
Registered:
9/16/08
|
|
(324 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 9:08 AM
|
> Question for Grammy:
>
> I always thought the rule of thumb budget advice from
> the experts was that our goal should be to spend no
> more than 25 percent of our income on housing. Is
> this still true, hon, and if so, why are they talking
> about 34 and 38 percent??
It's 25% if just mortgage payment, they are going to take a full payment, mortgage payment plus 1/12 of property tax and property insurance. Because of this they allow a greater loan to income ratio.
The real fact...this is the same number we quailified them with in the first place. Yes, many of them were stated or no income loans and only about the numbers quoted above were full doc. This is a bit more than what meets the eye.
This is also a way to find the fraud inducing brokers. If the borrower who stated an income comes in for help they much VERIFY their income. If it is different than what the broker put on the submitting application...BUSTED...FEDERAL OFFENCE....LOST LICENSE...LOST BUSINESS...JAIL TIME...FEDERAL JAIL TIME...no funny business here...this is serious and also very needed.
BUT if you do ask for this type of help, they won't forgive the negative interest, they won't remove or delete the holder of the 2nd, they won't roll down the value unless you can go to FHA, not really workable in California, their max loan is $417,000. right now. There is talk of increasing it for California to NY and Hawaii's levels...not sure yet, that would help.
What is in the article about the Oct. 1 change for FHA going to 90%, that's actually a change for the worse, they used to go 97%.
Listen, if they did what I said, and we all know they won't; it would level the RE loss at 20% and stabilize it. Yes, the BANKS would loose more but only another 20% and it won't be the same bank that lost 2nd. usually. The one's that do, again it's a much smaller write down than they are talking and it keeps the foreclosure down about 40%, it called a recession but the way we are headed it won't stop ar recession it will go to full on depression.
They won't do it because it would take -0- from the government, just a renegotiation with borrowers, a note modification and good to go. No capital infusion and that is what the banks don't want. They want our money so they can buy other banks, not help out the people that need it.
I am soooo pissed...it is so easy and they have everyone thinking it is so hard...
oh and the payment of the 20 billion...it will be blocked, at least until election so McCain can get at least SOME votes, but also because everyone knows Obama is going to win and it will be within his power to prosecute and convict these people then they will go to jail also...LOVE IT!!!!
PRETTY SOON YOU'RE GONNA SEE A HAPPY DANCE FROM ME!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
35,442
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(323 of 367)
Re: It's the economy, stupid
Oct 28, 2008 5:58 AM
|
Better late than never.
Special Report Mortgage Meltdown
212,000 borrowers avoid foreclosure in Sept.
Foreclosure prevention group Hope Now says it's helped 2.5 million home owners since the start of the housing crisis last summer.
By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: October 27, 2008: 8:33 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Mortgage lenders have helped nearly 2.5 million troubled homeowners avoid foreclosure since the mortgage meltdown began in the summer of 2007.
That's according to the latest report from Hope Now, the coalition of banks, mortgage-securities investors and housing counselors formed by the Bush administration to stem the foreclosure crisis.
Hope Now members helped 212,000 borrowers stay in their homes in September, a new record and an increase of 12% from August.
Despite Hope Now's best efforts, however, many homeowners are still falling through the cracks. According to Hope Now, 85,793 homes were lost to foreclosure in September, down 1% from August. At that rate, more than a million families will have their homes repossessed in the next twelve months.
"There's a lot of help being offered and a lot of people actively seeking help," said Faith Schwartz, director of Hope Now.
Indeed, it isn't clear just how many U.S. homeowners are currently in trouble. But the most recent report from RealtyTrac, the online marketer of foreclosed properties found that there were 265,968 new foreclosure filings issued in September alone.
Schwartz says that her mission is to get the word out to borrowers to that help is available. Too many homeowners fail to act early, when repayment problems are still manageable.
"This is an emotional issue for homeowners," she said, "and our job is to help them not lose heart, help them to stay engaged and realize there is help out there."
Mortgage modifications rising
But Hope Now's efforts are still dominated by repayment plans, which add overdue balances to upcoming payments, and are generally considered to be a less effective means of helping borrowers. In September, 53.8% of Hope Now's workouts were repayment plans. The proportion of mortgage modifications, which permanently change the terms of a mortgage to make them less onerous, climbed from 41.7% in August to 46.2% of all workouts in September.
The good news is that several new foreclosure-prevention efforts on the part of Hope Now members are starting to kick in, and that should boost the number of homeowners that get help.
On Oct. 1 the Hope for Homeowners program, which was a part of the massive housing rescue bill passed in July, went into effect. Under it, the Federal Housing Authority will guarantee refinanced loans if lenders agree to write down the mortgage balances to 90% of a home's market value.
Meanwhile the failed bank IndyMac, which is now under the conservatorship of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, has rolled out a standard protocol to reduce mortgage payments to 38% of pre-tax income for troubled borrowers who qualify.
Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), which bought defunct lender Countrywide, has a similar program that will begin in December and use an even more generous 34% debt-to-income ratio.
Says Schwartz: "There's just more focus on doing everything we can to help folks avoid foreclosure.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/27/real_estate/Hope_Now_rises_in_September/index.htm
Question for Grammy:
I always thought the rule of thumb budget advice from the experts was that our goal should be to spend no more than 25 percent of our income on housing. Is this still true, hon, and if so, why are they talking about 34 and 38 percent??
|
|
|
|
|
