Sometimes I think Bush isn't a republican at all....

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 08:18 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Offering federal help for strapped mortgage holders, President Bush is proposing to aid hundreds of thousands of borrowers hard hit by the housing slump.

The president on Friday was to talk about several initiatives and reforms to help homeowners with risky mortgages keep their homes, a senior administration official said Thursday. Bush also was to discuss efforts to prevent these kinds of problems from arising in the future.

The official said Bush will direct Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson to work on an initiative to help troubled mortgage holders get services and products they need to keep them from defaulting on their loans. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the initiatives ahead of the presidential event.

Bush also planned to:

- Urge Congress to pass Federal Housing Administration overhaul legislation that would give the FHA more flexibility in assisting mortgage holders with subprime mortgages.

- Pledge to work with Congress to reform the tax code to help troubled borrowers rework their loans.

- Call for rigorously enforcing predatory lending laws and strengthening lending practices.

My Way News - Bush to Outline Aid to Mortgage Holders

Here we go. Bailing people out that bought something that they couldn't afford. Good God.

SoFlaJDM · 08-31-2007, 08:47 AM

well, it's gotta be the dems fault somehow

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

well, it's gotta be the dems fault somehow

Ignorant comment FTL. It's not. It's Bush's fault he is doing this. See, unlike others here. I will bad mouth my party when I'm not happy with them.

WickedLou9 · 08-31-2007, 08:59 AM

I'm not sure if I like the plan either. But I can see that he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. These mortgage problems are actually starting to effect the overall stock market and the econony as a whole. So what do you do? Do you allow the damage to our economy to continue to teach those irresponsible borrowers a lesson? It's a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Or do you reward these people who made risky and possibly irresponsible financial decisions by bailing them out.

Neither option is any good. The mistakes were made a long time ago and now we have to deal with the shitty consequences. Back when the housing boom was happening, everyone knew that these ARM's were going to eventually bite people in the ass. If they coudln't afford a 30 year fixed, how are they going to afford the mortgage after the low fixed rate expires and turns variable? It should have been obvious, but we allowed these irresponsible mortgage lenders to continue doing it for years. Now we are dealing with the fallout. That means making crappy decisions like this one, neither one really having a good outcome. But I don't see the failing with this particular decision, as it was predetermined. The previous failings forced this question and in a way forced the decision as well.
It's not just governmnet either. It's a failing of business, a failing of ethics, a failing of the agencies that regulate these banks, and it's a failing on the individual level where these borrowers took loans that they knew they could not afford.

6SpeedTA95 · 08-31-2007, 09:18 AM

Bush has thoroughly disappointed me and it looks like that trend will continue

Phantom · 08-31-2007, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

When Countrywide Home Loans goes bankrupt, it will be for all the bad loans it made.

Why is that?

Phantom · 08-31-2007, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

The major problem was that Countrywide was making "piggyback" loans to finance 100% of the purchase of residential property. This was rather bad business practice in states like California that have anti-deficiency protection on purchase-money mortgages. See California Code of Civil Procedure § 580d. The real estate market is projected to decline a further 8% by the first quarter of 2008; which does not bode well for subprime lenders.

Originally Posted by Section580d

No judgment shall be rendered for any deficiency upon a note secured by a deed of trust or mortgage upon real property or an estate for years therein hereafter executed in any case in which the real property or estate for years therein has been sold by the mortgagee or trustee under power of sale contained in the mortgage or deed of trust.

I've never heard of anything like this. It really is a different world out there in Cali...

6SpeedTA95 · 08-31-2007, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm not sure if I like the plan either. But I can see that he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. These mortgage problems are actually starting to effect the overall stock market and the econony as a whole. So what do you do? Do you allow the damage to our economy to continue to teach those irresponsible borrowers a lesson? It's a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Or do you reward these people who made risky and possibly irresponsible financial decisions by bailing them out.

Neither option is any good. The mistakes were made a long time ago and now we have to deal with the shitty consequences. Back when the housing boom was happening, everyone knew that these ARM's were going to eventually bite people in the ass. If they coudln't afford a 30 year fixed, how are they going to afford the mortgage after the low fixed rate expires and turns variable? It should have been obvious, but we allowed these irresponsible mortgage lenders to continue doing it for years. Now we are dealing with the fallout. That means making crappy decisions like this one, neither one really having a good outcome. But I don't see the failing with this particular decision, as it was predetermined. The previous failings forced this question and in a way forced the decision as well.
It's not just governmnet either. It's a failing of business, a failing of ethics, a failing of the agencies that regulate these banks, and it's a failing on the individual level where these borrowers took loans that they knew they could not afford.

I think you raise a couple of interesting points...

The first I must address is the president being between a rock and a hard place. The president needs to let the fed chairman handle the subprime issues. The Bernanke has already opened and extended the discount window to lending institutions that need and he has primed the market with a little bit of liquidity in the form of cash injections.

I do not think there should be any bailing out of the homeowners who purchased housing they could not afford. They had the contracts and the numbers made available to them at the time of the purchase, using my tax dollars (as a responsible individual) to bail out these people who were blatantly irresponsible is NOT the way to handle the situation.

The mortgage lenders were not the only ones being irresponsible and to phrase it as such is just flat wrong. The mortgage companies bear some of the responsibility for over extending themselves just like the home owners but there can be an appropriate place for an ARM or IO or 80/20 loan.

I place the majority of this blame on the individuals, if individuals had not wanted these loans the companies simply wouldn't have made them. This mess of blaming the businesses for an ethical failure and a regulation failure is wrong. The majority of the blame should be placed on the individuals who refused to read the agreements and the fine print associated with their mortgages. It's funny because in 2001, 2002,2003, 2004 these mortgage companies were regarded as heroes giving people a chance to own a home that never could.

Not anymore, now they're big evil and unethical. Lets get real here, the individual has the ultimate control over themselves and their finances not some bank or mortgage company.

WickedLou9 · 08-31-2007, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think you raise a couple of interesting points...

The first I must address is the president being between a rock and a hard place. The president needs to let the fed chairman handle the subprime issues. The Bernanke has already opened and extended the discount window to lending institutions that need and he has primed the market with a little bit of liquidity in the form of cash injections.

I do not think there should be any bailing out of the homeowners who purchased housing they could not afford. They had the contracts and the numbers made available to them at the time of the purchase, using my tax dollars (as a responsible individual) to bail out these people who were blatantly irresponsible is NOT the way to handle the situation.

The mortgage lenders were not the only ones being irresponsible and to phrase it as such is just flat wrong. The mortgage companies bear some of the responsibility for over extending themselves just like the home owners but there can be an appropriate place for an ARM or IO or 80/20 loan.

I place the majority of this blame on the individuals, if individuals had not wanted these loans the companies simply wouldn't have made them. This mess of blaming the businesses for an ethical failure and a regulation failure is wrong. The majority of the blame should be placed on the individuals who refused to read the agreements and the fine print associated with their mortgages. It's funny because in 2001, 2002,2003, 2004 these mortgage companies were regarded as heroes giving people a chance to own a home that never could.

Not anymore, now they're big evil and unethical. Lets get real here, the individual has the ultimate control over themselves and their finances not some bank or mortgage company.

Well I do still think that some of these loan agents were being pressued to push these non-standard mortgage packages, so much so that they were misleading borrowers and intentionally selling them a package that they knew full well the borrower could not afford. All the while, they were trying to convince the borrower that they could in fact afford it. The borrowers did not always make an informed choice and often times would use the advice of thier agent to make a decision. It's not quite that simple to say that the borrowers knew what they were getting into.. alot of times they did not. They thought that they knew, based on the info from thier agent, but the picture they were given was incomplete.

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

The real estate "bust" has just begun. Countrywide borrowed 11.5 billion this month just to keep operating. What we have seen was just a ripple in the world financial markets over the subprime mortgage problem. What is coming, with more than two million foreclosures projected over the next twelve months, is a tsunami! You won't see the bottom of the market until late 2008; and then it will take years before it comes back. It was all due to the extraordinary amount of "puffing" by real estate and mortgage brokers; and not just a few of them will be bankrupt.

And although that is bad, some good may come of it. Places where homes appeciated 100-200-300% in the last 2-5 years will come back down to more realistic prices. Which is good for most everyone. Well, except for the people who don't have any more equity in their homes.

So far this problem hasn't seemed to hurt our area of NC. Lots of houses are being bought and sold and lots of new homes are still being built. But our housing prices haven't skyrocketed like in other areas either.

6SpeedTA95 · 08-31-2007, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Well I do still think that some of these loan agents were being pressued to push these non-standard mortgage packages, so much so that they were misleading borrowers and intentionally selling them a package that they knew full well the borrower could not afford. All the while, they were trying to convince the borrower that they could in fact afford it. The borrowers did not always make an informed choice and often times would use the advice of thier agent to make a decision. It's not quite that simple to say that the borrowers knew what they were getting into.. alot of times they did not. They thought that they knew, based on the info from thier agent, but the picture they were given was incomplete.

Well that is an excellent point but where does my responsibility come in? I know for a fact these people were pushing these loans because the banks made instant profit off of them in the form of fees and closing costs. But the consumer also has an obligation to READ the contract before they sign it. That is why they bear the biggest portion of the responsibility. If there's anyone in this country who's mortgage broker held a gun ot their head and made them sign something against their will I'd say the company is solely responsible but that didn't happen.

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Well I do still think that some of these loan agents were being pressued to push these non-standard mortgage packages, so much so that they were misleading borrowers and intentionally selling them a package that they knew full well the borrower could not afford. All the while, they were trying to convince the borrower that they could in fact afford it. The borrowers did not always make an informed choice and often times would use the advice of thier agent to make a decision. It's not quite that simple to say that the borrowers knew what they were getting into.. alot of times they did not. They thought that they knew, based on the info from thier agent, but the picture they were given was incomplete.

In the end it all comes out to what their payments were a month. If they were on the bleeding edge of what they could really afford and had a variable rate which went up, it was the buyers fault. Buyers know what their monthly payment is going to be well before they sign the papers.

WickedLou9 · 08-31-2007, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

In the end it all comes out to what their payments were a month. If they were on the bleeding edge of what they could really afford and had a variable rate which went up, it was the buyers fault. Buyers know what their monthly payment is going to be well before they sign the papers.

Often times they were told that they could simply refinance when the rate increased so thier payment might even go down! yay! Little did they know that due to thier bad credit that the now can't refinance as the same lender won't approve them anymore. So they are now stuck with the higher payment.
Did they knew they were taking a risk? Probably. But I don't think they were clear on how much risk they were taking in reality. The lenders were certainly not forthcoming about it either.
I'm not saying that the borrowers are not to blame, they do share a part of it, but I really don't think you can put 100% of the blame on their shoulders.

lew · 08-31-2007, 10:34 AM

He's certainly a Republican.

He's just no conservative.

lew · 08-31-2007, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

George W. Bush is neither a Republican nor a conservative. He's a Neocon.

So Neocon is a party now?

tbone · 08-31-2007, 10:59 AM

Or maybe he is the new Republican? There certainly seems to be a party shift since even the 80s.

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

The Neocons have subverted the Republican Party. The last real Republican (and true conservative) was Senator Barry Goldwater.

"Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the 'American grain.' It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked."

motivez · 08-31-2007, 11:12 AM

I think it's more likely that it's you and others who are frustrated with Bush that aren't the Republicans anymore

Your party changed and adopted a new set of ideals that simply don't mesh with the old Goldwater conservatism line of thinking.. and it doesn't show any signs of going back.

I'm sure there will be some rhetoric as election comes around, a few mea culpas and so forth about how Washington changed them instead of vice versa, but if elected into power again, who really thinks it's going to stop?

IminWonderland · 08-31-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I've never heard of anything like this. It really is a different world out there in Cali...

The market is really bad out here in Socal right now.

I know several people who lost their jobs, and needed to buy a home and got what they couldn't afford.

It's sad, but I don't think they should be bailed out.

I want it to go down so I can actually afford to live here. If it keeps up, a normal house could actually be a normal price again.