Mortgage Principal Reduction?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Spence, who held a gun to the borrower's head? Lender abuse. The borrowers got thier mortgages at the lowest rates in history and still couldn't pay the monthly bill. What about the dopes who took out the interest only loans? Show me one instance that a borrower said the guy at the passing was holding a gun?

Often people couldn't pay the bill because of misleading ARMs that blew up or inflated prices plunged and put their houses under water. Money was so easy that predatory lending became common as risk was obfuscated.

Many markets had outpaced the average consumer.

I've repeatedly said that irresponsibility was certainly an issue for some, but the real crisis was due to a system that encouraged lending into a market that needed cheap credit to exist. It was like a coke head that just needed more coke to keep from crashing.


-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Often people couldn't pay the bill because of misleading ARMs that blew up or inflated prices plunged and put their houses under water. Money was so easy that predatory lending became common as risk was obfuscated.

Many markets had outpaced the average consumer.

I've repeatedly said that irresponsibility was certainly an issue for some, but the real crisis was due to a system that encouraged lending into a market that needed cheap credit to exist. It was like a coke head that just needed more coke to keep from crashing.


-spence

"Often people couldn't pay the bill because of misleading ARMs "

They are not misleading if one is responsible about the contract they are getting into.

"Many markets had outpaced the average consumer."

That's true. But when that happens, intelligent people wait for the inevitable correction. They don't buy $600,000 houses on a $45,000 income.

"It was like a coke head that just needed more coke to keep from crashing."

Using that analogy, if the addict's problem is that he can no longer afford the price of coke, why is it a good idea for the feds to lower the price of coke to make it affordable?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Using that analogy, if the addict's problem is that he can no longer afford the price of coke, why is it a good idea for the feds to lower the price of coke to make it affordable?

I think you missed it.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you missed it.

-spence

No, I didn't.

Spence, here is what happened in the years from 2004-2006. Lots of speculators bought houses that they could never afford. They bought these houses with creative loans like ARMs and "interest-only" mortgages. The theory was, that when the mortgages re-set to levels that people could never re-pay, by that time the house would have doubled in value, so they could cash out the equity. Greedy people got caught up in that speculation, and the bubble burst.

(The other thing that was going on, was that your party was putting political pressure on banks to throw away accepted underwriting guidelines for who could get a mortgage. Brilliant, as it turns out.)

That's the same exact thing that happened when the tech bubble burst. But the feds then didn't say they were going to artificially re-set the value of tech stocks. Because messing with markets causes more problems than it solves, and in this case, it costs money that we don't have.

If these folks cannot afford their house, and they can't sell it for what they owe, there is a reasonable mechanism for that, it's called forclosure.

That you try to frame this in a way that makes it sound like you're doing me a favor, is both factually incorrect and offensive. Obama is re-distributing wealth in an attempt to buy vores, that's all this is.

Enough.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, I didn't. Spence, here is what happened in the years from 2004-2006. Lots of speculators bought houses that they could never afford. They bought these houses with creative loans like ARMs and "interest-only" mortgages. The theory was, that when the mortgages re-set to levels that people could never re-pay, by that time the house would have doubled in value, so they could cash out the equity. Greedy people got caught up in that speculation, and the bubble burst.

(The other thing that was going on, was that your party was putting political pressure on banks to throw away accepted underwriting guidelines for who could get a mortgage. Brilliant, as it turns out.)

That's the same exact thing that happened when the tech bubble burst. But the feds then didn't say they were going to artificially re-set the value of tech stocks. Because messing with markets causes more problems than it solves, and in this case, it costs money that we don't have.

If these folks cannot afford their house, and they can't sell it for what they owe, there is a reasonable mechanism for that, it's called forclosure.

That you try to frame this in a way that makes it sound like you're doing me a favor, is both factually incorrect and offensive. Obama is re-distributing wealth in an attempt to buy vores, that's all this is.

Enough.

I love it, the finance industry rigs the system to extract billions from the market and the blame is ALWAYS on the individual.

I've come to the realization you don't read a single thing that runs counter to your opinion. Not that you don't agree with it, you don't even want to expose yourself to it.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, the finance industry rigs the system to extract billions from the market and the blame is ALWAYS on the individual.

-spence

so you're implying the finance industry benefitted? Funny, I thought the largest financial organizations were on the bring of collapse? I thought credit markets were frozen and our entire US economy on the brink? I must have missed something.......

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

so you're implying the finance industry benefitted? Funny, I thought the largest financial organizations were on the bring of collapse? I thought credit markets were frozen and our entire US economy on the brink? I must have missed something.......

Jimmy, you're smarter than that. Profitable companies don't hoard their cash, they return it to shareholders in the form of dividends.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, the finance industry rigs the system to extract billions from the market and the blame is ALWAYS on the individual.

I've come to the realization you don't read a single thing that runs counter to your opinion. Not that you don't agree with it, you don't even want to expose yourself to it.

-spence

"the finance industry rigs the system to extract billions from the market "

How did they do that, exactly? Did they "extract billions" by hacking into people's accounts and taking their money?

"you don't read a single thing that runs counter to your opinion. Not that you don't agree with it, you don't even want to expose yourself to it."

Spence, if I didn't read your opinions, I wouldn't be in a position to destroy them so thoroughly.

Spence, you say the banks "extracted" that money, as if the borrowers had no say in the transaction. That's absurd.

"the blame is ALWAYS on the individual."

If someone gets robbed at gunpoint, I don't blame the individual. If someone voluntarily chooses to assume a mortgage that they cannot repay, that's their problem, not my problem.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It sure must be nice to be in a group that gets anointed with "victim" status by liberals. When one is so anointed, liberals will tell you that nothing is ever your fault, and that you have zero responsibility or accountability. What a way to coast through life.

Spence, if someone cannot afford a 3,000 sf house, the answer is to move them into a house they can afford. The answer is not for Obama to artificially lower the price that the house sells for.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How did they do that, exactly? Did they "extract billions" by hacking into people's accounts and taking their money?

No, they lobby to set the rules so they can exploit the system. Don't be naive, the master is ALWAYS shareholder value. That's why we have regulation.

Spence, if I didn't read your opinions, I wouldn't be in a position to destroy them so thoroughly.

If someone gets robbed at gunpoint, I don't blame the individual. If someone voluntarily chooses to assume a mortgage that they cannot repay, that's their problem, not my problem.

Why not? Perhaps they were walking in a bad area.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It sure must be nice to be in a group that gets anointed with "victim" status by liberals. When one is so anointed, liberals will tell you that nothing is ever your fault, and that you have zero responsibility or accountability. What a way to coast through life.

More evidence you don't read a single thing I post.

Spence, if someone cannot afford a 3,000 sf house, the answer is to move them into a house they can afford. The answer is not for Obama to artificially lower the price that the house sells for.

They can't move into a house they can afford because their house is under water and they can't get a new loan.

Sure, the banks didn't mind taking risks when it was with other people's money but now that there's accountability they've shut off the spigot.

-spence