Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, March 09, 2010

In an effort to end the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration has been trying to keep defaulting owners in their homes. Now it will take a new approach: paying some of them to leave. This latest program, which will allow owners to sell for less than they owe and will give them a little cash to speed them on their way, is one of the administration's most aggressive attempts to grapple with a problem that has defied solutions.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

American1st

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I am against this. I don't want my money to be used to pay people to leave their houses. This is something the market can do on its own.

I put this article up yesterday, no one talked about it, no one wanted to realize the fact that the first attempt at fixing foreclosures failed miserably, and this one is using the funding of irresponsible behavior to solve a problem of irresponsible behavior.

Don't as me how that is going to work.

> Lenders will be compelled to accept that arrangement, forgiving the difference between the market price of the property and what they are owed.

"compelled" = forced

"forgiving" = forcibly taking a loss

> on the property the government intends to spread its cash around.

"its cash" = taken from taxpayers pockets

On a realistic note, an acquaintance is in the process of buying a house that a bank foreclosed on. The price is currently $100k under what the original owner paid. Hopefully they are getting a bargain, can stay employed long enough to pay it off, and the bank will have the funds to loan out to others.

Another great idea from President Printing Press.

Oh fuck and great! Short sales devalue the homes of those of us who could make the payments. This is going to fuck over the middle class. Ya!

They just can't find enough ways to spend MY money. The assholes have to be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives. They have to f*** with everything.

Oh fuck and great! Short sales devalue the homes of those of us who could make the payments. This is going to fuck over the middle class. Ya!

#5 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-09 11:18 AM

Purely out of curiosity and not because I support this move, but how is it any worse than letting the homes go into foreclosure?

how is it any worse than letting the homes go into foreclosure?

I am not well versed in this, but, from what I have picked up from people talking, a foreclosed house can still be sold at the proper value. For example, the homes in my area average at $250,000. A next door neighbor is short selling for $70. That devalues all of our homes as a result.

I am not well versed in this, but, from what I have picked up from people talking, a foreclosed house can still be sold at the proper value. For example, the homes in my area average at $250,000. A next door neighbor is short selling for $70. That devalues all of our homes as a result.

#8 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-09 11:25 AM

I see your point. Though, if no one's interested in buying the foreclosed home at proper value, then you have the potential problem of the home sitting in disrepair, causing a similar effect.


Oh fuck and great! Short sales devalue the homes of those of us who could make the payments. This is going to fuck over the middle class. Ya!
#5 | Posted by kanrei

You are just mean spirited. It's not fair that you accumulate wealth while others struggle. These social justice policies put forth by Obama will ensure that the wealth is spread out more evenly and that there is less of a gap between the richest and poorest people.

Sincerely

The Left

Be sure to solicit 'TaxFraud' on the consequences of the program.

Obama administration has been trying to keep defaulting owners in their homes. Now it will take a new approach: paying some of them to leave.

So which is your priority, Mr O? Keeping people in their house [why not then a "forced" loan mod] or simply to kick them out and tax them for the pleasure?

If this guy isn't the biggest embarrasement to ever hold the office, I don't know who is.

Where will these people paid to leave their homes go anyway? Short selling does not give you a penny, it just gets you out of the home. You are now broke AND homeless. Problem solved?

The homeowner gets $1500 dollars to start finding a solution to the problem. That mean you pay them $1500 dollars because they couldn't pay it back in the first place.

I don't know about most places, but in South Florida, $1500 won't move you into anything. You need at least first month and a deposit, which adds up to about $4000.

Purely out of curiosity and not because I support this move, but how is it any worse than letting the homes go into foreclosure?

#7 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Why should our tax dollars go to someone who can't afford a home they thought they had to have? It should be between them and the lendor, and not drag me and my money into it.

wisdevil,

Are you ignorant or just a partisan hack?

Shrub takes tha cake, no one even comes close to that moron, although Palin is trying to fill his shoes. But if you ignore what Palin says and count only what she has done, she was much better for the people of Alaska, than Shrub ever was for the people of Texas or the United States. 20 long years of pollution, corruption and deficits culminating in the greatest financial crime in the history of mankind.

But the similarities are more striking than the differences. No substantial changes.

I am not well versed in this, but, from what I have picked up from people talking, a foreclosed house can still be sold at the proper value. For example, the homes in my area average at $250,000. A next door neighbor is short selling for $70. That devalues all of our homes as a result.

Guess which home is the "proper value"? Here's a hint...it ain't the one @ 250k.

It only took 17 posts to deflect to Bush. The left is getting very slow

Why should our tax dollars go to someone who can't afford a home they thought they had to have? It should be between them and the lendor, and not drag me and my money into it.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-03-09 12:06 PM

I didn't say your tax dollars should. I merely asked a question, wondering what the net effect is from this move vs. letting people lose their homes. I made it clear I wasn't advocating Obama's program.

If the gov't gives you money to sell short and the bank has to eat the loss and forgive it, isn't both things income to the seller? Where's taxman?

I would imagine so.

So, let's help out folks who bought houses they can't afford get out from under the financial pinch plus give them a little cash to be on their way. Meanwhile, the housing market is flooded even further with short sales so the schmucks who never missed a payment; but are selling a house because of typical life change events such as retirement, job change, etc. wind up having to sell for even less than they could get before this yet another grand government fiasco kicks off.

Nutsack,
Are you ignorant or just a partisan hack?
What sense does it make for the Federal Goverment to stick thier noses into this when we all know the taxpayers are the ones left on the hook, dummy? Someone can't afford their house, it isn't my fucking problem.

I have thought about the problem of people being underwater on thier homes, and needing to get out.

I throwing an idea out here for consideration...

When the house is sold, the house have a lien imposed upon it for the difference owed. While this would raise the "actual" price to the new purchaser, the banks get paid the difference, by the new home owner.

I am finding here in SiliconValley, that short-sales tend to be well below, even conservative house prices, this deteriorates home prices, without it being the "real" value of the home.

"If this guy isn't the biggest embarrasement to ever hold the office, I don't know who is."

The guy who was reading children's stories during the 9/11 attacks.

But Obama is still pretty bad.

If foreclosures affecfnordt everone's home value, shouldn't we be asking ourselves wether the tax dollars spent to help these people out is greater than or lesser than the amount of lost value over all?

When the house is sold, the house have a lien imposed upon it for the difference owed. While this would raise the "actual" price to the new purchaser, the banks get paid the difference, by the new home owner.

#25 | Posted by AndreaMackris

And now the new owner is upside down. Would you buy a house like that? If you would, you are nuckin futs.

My point was that this is like putting duct tape on a broken damn. It will not save home value. It will not help the people getting out of the homes. It will not help anyone except giving the banks back homes people paid money for.

People who are foolish enough to purchase houses near someone who gets foreclosed upon have no right to complain about their dropping home values. Its their own fault for buying a risky asset.

wisdevil,

As soon as 6% of the subprimes started detonating, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went into crash-alert mode and began looking for a place where his buddies could offload their dodgy assets. As the article suggests, Paulson finally decided that Fannie and Freddie were the only practical option.

And that's just one of many stealth bailouts.

There are others, too. Like Bernanke's quantitative easing (QE) shell game. QE was promoted as a way to increase consumer lending by building reserves at the banks. Only it doesn't work that way. What QE really does is exchange bank reserves for "unsellable" mortgage-backed securities. In other words, it trades quality, liquid bonds for illiquid assets of uncertain value. The arrangement allows the banks to earn interest on reserves at no cost to themselves, while the Fed is saddled with downgraded securities for which there is no current market. If you are the Fed; you just got taken to the cleaners.

Bernanke implemented the "good bank/bad bank" model that was recommended after the Lehman default, but without any strings attached for the banks. Since then, it's been one ginormous government-paid freebie after another. Rather than nationalize the banks so they could be cleaned up, reorganized and recapitalized. Bernanke found a way to rebuild balance sheets, restore profitability, and preserve the banks political firepower without any fundamental structural change. None of the head honchos at Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup or JP Morgan lost their jobs. The same wobbly, crisis-prone system has been reassembled without the slightest change to the blueprint

The bailouts merely indicate the extent to which the banks control all parts of the political apparatus. The problem is political not economic. Speculators will always try to bend the rules and game the system. But it's the public's responsibility to make sure their representatives keep a tight leash on the high-stakes gamblers and other flim-flammers. That means tough, hardnose regulations; a new regime of stop signs, speed limits and guard rails. Cross the meridian, and it's "off to the poky". Presently, the rules only apply to those who are not powerful or well-connected enough to shrug them off, which is why the system is broken.

The public is being fucked by fraudsters that control our Government. It all started under Shrub, when Greenspan used the Real Estat bubble to support Shrub's re-election.

Wall Street picked Obama, as the best cover to continue business as usual. So far Obama has been able to do things for them the Rethuglicans and Shrub could never have pulled off. But the root blame lies in flawed free market libertarian thinking promoted by Friedman, Reagan, Thatcher, Rubin, Greenspan and their co-conspirators as much as Shrub.

Wall street is a den of thieves. Ultimately, no one except our Government will ever have enough power to curb Wall Street's excesses. That will never happen until things get so bad that we throw all the bums out. Meanwhile thieves and their puppets continue to confuse the public and steal.

The guy who was reading children's stories during the 9/11 attacks.

#26 | Posted by Sully

Are you a 911er? Did he know the attacks were going to take place when he was visiting the school?

Did he know the attacks were going to take place when he was visiting the school?

He knew he was going to have to read in front of people, and that made him uneasy.

More handouts!

More dependencies created!

One more step towards self inflicted slavery!

Speaking wich, Weyerhaeuser bought the building I used to work in for 26 Million in 2004, they just sold it for 8 million.

Good job.

Nutsack, I don't disagree with your #31. Now you call me a name, and I'll call you a name. Deal?

Now you call me a name, and I'll call you a name. Deal?

Posted by wisgod at 2010-03-09 05:59 PM

Since when have you ever asked for permission. LOL

He knew he was going to have to read in front of people, and that made him uneasy.

#33 | Posted by ZombieHunter

You are right. He isn't near as good reading a tela-prompter as little o is. Even little o studders and looses his place while reading.

But who is really taking the losses, which are only going to mount. In Detroit things are so bad they are bulldozing homes into farmland.

Its a sure bet the plan is leave taxpayers stuck with the costs, indirectly as at Fanny & Freddie, the Fed and Treasury, collapsing currency and so forth.

Whatever you do, never give the little guy a break. Only the good die young.

But who is really taking the losses, which are only going to mount. In Detroit things are so bad they are bulldozing homes into farmland.

Mark my word - it will never happen, no matter how bad it gets.

Signed,

A Michigander who knows WAY more about Detroit than any of these hack 'journalists' being cited.

mote bright ideas from the moron in chief

Let me get this straight,

We paid to get the people into these houses...

Then we paid them to stay in them longer than they should have...

Now we are paying them to leave...

If anyone still thinks government intervention in the marketplace is a worthwhile endeavor, please shoot yourself now.

Had the government never gotten involved in housing in the first place by backing loans, and CRA, then this entire thing would have NEVER happened. Socialists, statists, fascists and economic central planners, you have nobody but yourself to blame.

One aspect of the plan's agenda comes a little more into focus:

Treasury to Reduce Social Security of Seniors Who Defaulted

A littlenoticed law could soon result in smaller Social Security checks for hundreds of thousands of the elderly and disabled who owe the U.S. money from defaulted loans and other debts more than a decade old.

Social Security benefits are offlimits to creditors, such as creditcard companies and banks. But the U.S. can collect debts to federal agencies by "offsetting," or withholding Social Security and disability payments.

The Treasury currently withholds benefits of 3.1 million Social Security recipients to recover defaulted student, farm and smallbusiness loans, unpaid income taxes, amounts veterans owe for health care, and other debts to the government.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable