Obama Battling Foreclosures

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Scuba19 wrote:
A really important thing to keep in mind is that just because you are approved for a loan, doesn’t mean you should take it. What this all comes down to, is that people live above their means. Taking out a loan for the maximum amount possible to buy a new house is never a good idea. You should always leave yourself somewhat of a cushion.

I can’t tell you how many people request loan modifications because they “can’t afford it”. However, their monthly bills still include:

-$300 for cellphones
-$150 for cable
-$1000 for 2 car payments (at least)
-$500 for some type of lessons for their kids (ballet, dance, etc.)
-$1000 in food for 4 people
-etc.

Agreed in general, but on that last item: $250/month in food per person, assuming adults or teens, is hardly extravagant.
[/quote]

If there is anything you should spend money its nutrition. Not IPODs and Videogames. When I finally get a good job and gainful employment, my fridge will be stocked with prawns and lamb steaks, no doubt.

The cable and $200 martial art academies are a fucking waste of money. Pathetic shit.
There are so many ‘poor’ in this country who somehow manage cable every month, go figure.

22

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Scuba19 wrote:
A really important thing to keep in mind is that just because you are approved for a loan, doesn’t mean you should take it. What this all comes down to, is that people live above their means. Taking out a loan for the maximum amount possible to buy a new house is never a good idea. You should always leave yourself somewhat of a cushion.

I can’t tell you how many people request loan modifications because they “can’t afford it”. However, their monthly bills still include:

-$300 for cellphones
-$150 for cable
-$1000 for 2 car payments (at least)
-$500 for some type of lessons for their kids (ballet, dance, etc.)
-$1000 in food for 4 people
-etc.

Agreed in general, but on that last item: $250/month in food per person, assuming adults or teens, is hardly extravagant.

If there is anything you should spend money its nutrition. Not IPODs and Videogames. When I finally get a good job and gainful employment, my fridge will be stocked with prawns and lamb steaks, no doubt.

The cable and $200 martial art academies are a fucking waste of money. Pathetic shit.
There are so many ‘poor’ in this country who somehow manage cable every month, go figure.
[/quote]

I have seen many people steal cable from their neighbors, just hook it up when they aren’t home.

23

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
This could be solved by just giving the homes away for free?! [sarcasm]

Honestly tho…if these things are just going to become unoccupied foreclosures, perhaps refinancing them for a price that is equivalent to the current market (severely depressed) and more manageable by the owner would be good.

It’s funny you mention that, there were some homes in Victorville being built, which the banks gave up on because the market would have them just sit there. This is a city with a high level of foreclosures, unemployment, and homelessness. The banks decided to bulldoze them, rather than have them sit and have squatters destroy them over time. [/quote]

While not true in my area, I’ve heard some smart people, such as Clark Howard, state that in many areas the value of a property is entirely or almost entirely in the land: the value is the same for the vacant lot as it is for the lot with home, or very nearly so.

Obviously, this has to be in reference to areas where land prices are quite high.

This was stated prior to the bubble deflating and may be even more true now.

Still, it’s wasteful.

While I think anyone can guess that overall my view is not remotely in favor of giving people tens or hundreds of thousands of other people’s money (previously given and now not being paid back) on account of their not being able to pay, and instead homes should be sold before too much trouble is reached and so forth, I do think the banks have long been stupid in how they handle possibly-temporary inability to pay.

Sure, you want a big stick so that people will make sacrifices to make their mortgage payment.

But, there’s no added value in having a 100 ton rock 100 feet over someone’s head that will be dropped on them if they don’t pay, versus a hard smash with a baseball bat. In other words, nuclear overkill deterrence does no added good in this case.

Where someone has a good overall employment and credit history and there was, as there should have been, a large downpayment made on the home it makes a lot more sense to move some payments to the back of the loan, to come to some sort of agreement on handling a temporary inability to pay for a limited time, and a plan for putting the house on the market in a smooth transition if things don’t work out.

Aw, that takes a few hours of someone’s time to negotiate?

A lot cheaper than losing tens of thousands on the foreclosure, as is typically the case.

But banks have historically chosen the hard-ass approach, which really is not proving to be in their best interest. Still, it is of course their business if they make stupid decisions on handling these things or not.

24

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Scuba19 wrote:
A really important thing to keep in mind is that just because you are approved for a loan, doesn’t mean you should take it. What this all comes down to, is that people live above their means. Taking out a loan for the maximum amount possible to buy a new house is never a good idea. You should always leave yourself somewhat of a cushion.

I can’t tell you how many people request loan modifications because they “can’t afford it”. However, their monthly bills still include:

-$300 for cellphones
-$150 for cable
-$1000 for 2 car payments (at least)
-$500 for some type of lessons for their kids (ballet, dance, etc.)
-$1000 in food for 4 people
-etc.

Agreed in general, but on that last item: $250/month in food per person, assuming adults or teens, is hardly extravagant.
[/quote]

I know its not extravagant, but it’s more than what is necessary. Four people can definitely live off of $200 a week in food, even at Giant Eagle. Stop shopping at Giant Eagle, and you’d be amazed at how much money you can save. For instance, my mom has been shopping at Aldi’s a little this past year to save money here and there. She saves AT LEAST $50 a week there, and that is with going all out. That adds up, and can really help when money is tight. Millions of people live off of far less than $250/week for four people. Rice, beans, chicken breast, etc. are a lot cheaper than most people realize. Buy in bulk.

If you can’t pay your bills, then you need to cut out the non-necessary items whether that is a $20 filet mignon or that $300 cell phone bill.

25

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
While I think anyone can guess that overall my view is not remotely in favor of giving people tens or hundreds of thousands of other people’s money (previously given and now not being paid back) on account of their not being able to pay, and instead homes should be sold before too much trouble is reached and so forth, I do think the banks have long been stupid in how they handle possibly-temporary inability to pay.

Sure, you want a big stick so that people will make sacrifices to make their mortgage payment.

But, there’s no added value in having a 100 ton rock 100 feet over someone’s head that will be dropped on them if they don’t pay, versus a hard smash with a baseball bat. In other words, nuclear overkill deterrence does no added good in this case.

Where someone has a good overall employment and credit history and there was, as there should have been, a large downpayment made on the home it makes a lot more sense to move some payments to the back of the loan, to come to some sort of agreement on handling a temporary inability to pay for a limited time, and a plan for putting the house on the market in a smooth transition if things don’t work out.

Aw, that takes a few hours of someone’s time to negotiate?

A lot cheaper than losing tens of thousands on the foreclosure, as is typically the case.

But banks have historically chosen the hard-ass approach, which really is not proving to be in their best interest. Still, it is of course their business if they make stupid decisions on handling these things or not.

[/quote]

It sounds like a good idea, but I guarantee you there will be lawsuits against them for “discrimination due to race” with that approach.

26

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
While I think anyone can guess that overall my view is not remotely in favor of giving people tens or hundreds of thousands of other people’s money (previously given and now not being paid back) on account of their not being able to pay, and instead homes should be sold before too much trouble is reached and so forth, I do think the banks have long been stupid in how they handle possibly-temporary inability to pay.

Sure, you want a big stick so that people will make sacrifices to make their mortgage payment.

But, there’s no added value in having a 100 ton rock 100 feet over someone’s head that will be dropped on them if they don’t pay, versus a hard smash with a baseball bat. In other words, nuclear overkill deterrence does no added good in this case.

Where someone has a good overall employment and credit history and there was, as there should have been, a large downpayment made on the home it makes a lot more sense to move some payments to the back of the loan, to come to some sort of agreement on handling a temporary inability to pay for a limited time, and a plan for putting the house on the market in a smooth transition if things don’t work out.

Aw, that takes a few hours of someone’s time to negotiate?

A lot cheaper than losing tens of thousands on the foreclosure, as is typically the case.

But banks have historically chosen the hard-ass approach, which really is not proving to be in their best interest. Still, it is of course their business if they make stupid decisions on handling these things or not.

It sounds like a good idea, but I guarantee you there will be lawsuits against them for “discrimination due to race” with that approach.[/quote]

My solution for that is a blind system like France. If you remove racial and ethnic questions entirely from the government census and require blind system in all job applications etcetera. Then you have gone to a ‘color-blind’ system, how can they discriminate against you if your race was never disclosed to the banker and your name is just a number?

It’s a way to avoid all this stupidity and get back to a real meritocracy.

27

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:
A really important thing to keep in mind is that just because you are approved for a loan, doesn’t mean you should take it. What this all comes down to, is that people live above their means. Taking out a loan for the maximum amount possible to buy a new house is never a good idea. You should always leave yourself somewhat of a cushion.

I can’t tell you how many people request loan modifications because they “can’t afford it”. However, their monthly bills still include:

-$300 for cellphones
-$150 for cable
-$1000 for 2 car payments (at least)
-$500 for some type of lessons for their kids (ballet, dance, etc.)
-$1000 in food for 4 people
-etc.[/quote]

This is why these people should have never gotten loans in the first place. Clearly, they have no money mgmt skillz.

28

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
While I think anyone can guess that overall my view is not remotely in favor of giving people tens or hundreds of thousands of other people’s money (previously given and now not being paid back) on account of their not being able to pay, and instead homes should be sold before too much trouble is reached and so forth, I do think the banks have long been stupid in how they handle possibly-temporary inability to pay.

Sure, you want a big stick so that people will make sacrifices to make their mortgage payment.

But, there’s no added value in having a 100 ton rock 100 feet over someone’s head that will be dropped on them if they don’t pay, versus a hard smash with a baseball bat. In other words, nuclear overkill deterrence does no added good in this case.

Where someone has a good overall employment and credit history and there was, as there should have been, a large downpayment made on the home it makes a lot more sense to move some payments to the back of the loan, to come to some sort of agreement on handling a temporary inability to pay for a limited time, and a plan for putting the house on the market in a smooth transition if things don’t work out.

Aw, that takes a few hours of someone’s time to negotiate?

A lot cheaper than losing tens of thousands on the foreclosure, as is typically the case.

But banks have historically chosen the hard-ass approach, which really is not proving to be in their best interest. Still, it is of course their business if they make stupid decisions on handling these things or not.

It sounds like a good idea, but I guarantee you there will be lawsuits against them for “discrimination due to race” with that approach.[/quote]

When there is no logical argument against the idea mentioned above, this is the trump card that is always played.

29

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Scuba19 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
While I think anyone can guess that overall my view is not remotely in favor of giving people tens or hundreds of thousands of other people’s money (previously given and now not being paid back) on account of their not being able to pay, and instead homes should be sold before too much trouble is reached and so forth, I do think the banks have long been stupid in how they handle possibly-temporary inability to pay.

Sure, you want a big stick so that people will make sacrifices to make their mortgage payment.

But, there’s no added value in having a 100 ton rock 100 feet over someone’s head that will be dropped on them if they don’t pay, versus a hard smash with a baseball bat. In other words, nuclear overkill deterrence does no added good in this case.

Where someone has a good overall employment and credit history and there was, as there should have been, a large downpayment made on the home it makes a lot more sense to move some payments to the back of the loan, to come to some sort of agreement on handling a temporary inability to pay for a limited time, and a plan for putting the house on the market in a smooth transition if things don’t work out.

Aw, that takes a few hours of someone’s time to negotiate?

A lot cheaper than losing tens of thousands on the foreclosure, as is typically the case.

But banks have historically chosen the hard-ass approach, which really is not proving to be in their best interest. Still, it is of course their business if they make stupid decisions on handling these things or not.

It sounds like a good idea, but I guarantee you there will be lawsuits against them for “discrimination due to race” with that approach.

When there is no logical argument against the idea mentioned above, this is the trump card that is always played. [/quote]

I’m not against the idea that was presented, it sounds pretty good to me. I just stated that lawsuits will be filed because less minorities would keep their homes than whites. Just like what happened in Baltimore to that one company where they were sued for not giving loans to enough minorities due to bad credit. However, when they started giving out more loans to minorities, they were then sued for predatory lending since those minorities had bad credit.

That’s not racist, it’s fact that most often minorities have worse credit.