Specific issue: Mortgage bailout

[RebeccaC]

I think we're in agreement about greedy, corrupt politicians in general. I think singling out Barney Frank as the reason we're in this mess was a little partisan and definitely dishonest.

 

Margaret

 

Margaret I am sorry that you feel it was partisan to single out House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank. Who has been on that committee for many many years and wrote, sponsored, or co-sponsored some of the legislation that caused this. I suppose if I expunge his record in congress and his personal ties to an executive at Fannie my post would be dishonest.

 

To be fair to Chairmen Frank he also has pressed to help the homeowners who were hurt by the work of his committee and for that I applaud him! When Brenake and others threw the home owners to the wolves and did not finance Hope for Home owners but just gave the bakes the money with no strings attached it was Frank who yelled fowl. He also made sure that they were taken care of in the new TARP money. Without him it would be another bail out like the airlines got, the big guy taken care of and kept solvent on the backs of the many little guys who go under. He has just been the most constant face on the above committee. He has in a way tried to undo some of the problems he helped create. Whether the way the second half of the trap money is being spent is all together wise I don't know. However I think it is not right to blindly hand banks money and then to tell mom and pop to suffer and Frank got that.

 

Anyway I am not sure you feeling that I am dishonest is right I just think...... Research Frank and I think you might see it a little differently but maybe not. Anyway I did not intend any malice or to be partisan and I don't think I was dishonest.

 

 

Pax

Edited March 10, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Demal]

I STRONGLY disagree! It is true that mortgage companies are not subject to CRA, and it is true that mortgage companies made many, many sub-prime loans. But the banks did receive the pressure from the government to make these types of loans. (And I know this from personal experience). And once the banks and mortgage companies were able to bundle these and resell them, the snowball was rolling.

 

And my main point for bringing this up is to stress the fact that the federal government had a rather large hand in all of this happening. Did the banks and mortgage companies make a lot of money off of these loans? You bet. Did they make these loans based on a profit motive, while they threw sound lending practices out the window? Absolutely.

 

But my main point, which is that the federal government should stay out of the banking business, remains. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.

 

My in-law's personal experience, as the chief executive of a 100+ branch California retail bank in the 1980s and 90s, was the opposite. He calls the pressure from the government "laughable." He says there were plenty of ways to get around the CRA requirements.

 

He does agree with your view on government meddling. On this issue, anyway.

[Jackie in NE]

My in-law's personal experience, as the chief executive of a 100+ branch California retail bank in the 1980s and 90s, was the opposite. He calls the pressure from the government "laughable." He says there were plenty of ways to get around the CRA requirements.

 

He does agree with your view on government meddling. On this issue, anyway.

 

I can only speak to my own experience with banking/CRA. I cannot speak to what kind of pressure the federal government put on mortgage companies, if any. Maybe someone else on the board can. But I stick by my point. The Federal Government should not be, IN ANY WAY, enticing or pressuring banks to make substandard loans. There are many ways to meet CRA requirements, but there is no way to "get around" them. It is law. I am not saying that the banks are innocent. Never said that. In fact I said just the opposite. BUT,the federal government encouraged banks to relax lending standards so that more people could own homes, and that imo, is wrong.

[Jackie in NE]

Thanks Jackie. I wanted to mention that to my brother.

 

My husband mentioned what you said the other day to my dad, and he said that my brother didn't say anything about that gov't bill having anything to do with it.

 

That's why I passed what you said along to my dad who passed it along to my brother.

 

As far as my dad is concerned, my brother is the smartest person in the world, and he would never believe anything my husband or I said over what my brother says.

 

He did add this, though:

 

From the OCC –

 

http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-136.htm

 

“Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA,†he added. “A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas.â€

 

My brother, ever the teaser, used to say that banks passed out titles like candy at Halloween. Keeps me humble. :D

[kalanamak]

We're quickly getting to the situation we were in in Iraq. No matter who is to blame for how we got here, now we have to figure out what to do. Obviously, no one agrees on the right course of action to fix this. There are two completely opposite sides, and a million in the middle.

 

I don't even know what I think about how to get out of the mess. Obviously, I don't even own a home, so it irritates me to have my tax money paying mortgages. On the other hand, I'm sure there are people who are innocent simply through their own ignorance and I don't want them homeless.

.

 

My middle ground is that we should prevent people from becoming homeless. Not because I'm a bleeding heart, but because they end up costing the system money. Kids raised with such horrible disruption cost the system money. For a middle ground, I vote a minimum help for those in trouble. If you have a Mc Mansion, eat a huge loss and get someplace small and in your range. If you live in an aging doublewide in a depressed part of the country, I think you ought to stay there, and be given a bit of help to do so.

 

How this would be administered is up to people far clever than me.:001_smile:

 

Then, nice strict sensible rules about lending....back to the old days of if you are a bad risk, you simply have to pay more in interest to "make up" for those in your situation who fail to pay.

 

Oh, and add to the "blame" list: TV. Show after show has people living in a much nicer place than mine with all the furniture perfect and new and matching, everything clean with out a sign anyone is cleaning it AND even the TV surgeons in sitcoms sit around all the time like they aren't working 70 hours a week to pay for all those spoiled teens and fancy cars. (pet peeve off)

[Margaret in GA]

My middle ground is that we should prevent people from becoming homeless. Not because I'm a bleeding heart, but because they end up costing the system money. Kids raised with such horrible disruption cost the system money. For a middle ground, I vote a minimum help for those in trouble. If you have a Mc Mansion, eat a huge loss and get someplace small and in your range. If you live in an aging doublewide in a depressed part of the country, I think you ought to stay there, and be given a bit of help to do so.

 

How this would be administered is up to people far clever than me.:001_smile:

 

Then, nice strict sensible rules about lending....back to the old days of if you are a bad risk, you simply have to pay more in interest to "make up" for those in your situation who fail to pay.

 

Oh, and add to the "blame" list: TV. Show after show has people living in a much nicer place than mine with all the furniture perfect and new and matching, everything clean with out a sign anyone is cleaning it AND even the TV surgeons in sitcoms sit around all the time like they aren't working 70 hours a week to pay for all those spoiled teens and fancy cars. (pet peeve off)

 

I could not agree more about TV. I'll ad HGTV to that list. They along with many, many home decorating magazines make people feel inadequate for not having a beautifully landscaped yard and new kitchen with granite counters, etc. While I have both those things (ahem), I find I'm bombarded daily with images of perfect homes and I'm Tired. Of. It.

 

Regarding Barney Frank: Yes, he's part of the problem. However, he did sponsor a bill in 05 that pushed for more regulation of FMae and FMac, which in hindsight we really could have used. I'm thinking there is very little difference on capitol hill between the d's and r's. That's all I'm saying. They are all beholden to special interests of one kind or another.

 

margaret

[VanessaS]

It's a privilege, not a right.

I bought a comfortable old ranch house but I know some McMansion people. One couple bought it as an investment (and only lived in 3 of 14 rooms!) and another bought theirs in order to be in the catchment area for the best schools. The first one defaulted and second one can't afford the utilities. Another reason to homeschool...

 

Also, people were quite scandalized at the house that we bought (it's small to them but we love it) because of the fantastic tax write-off that we were giving up. The standard wisdom we received was: buy as big and expensive a house as you can so that you can deduct the mortgage interest. We're actually paying off the principal faster than planned which further shocks them.

 

And yes, HGTV is a problem. We were replacing our entire plumbing (from copper to CPVC due to well water) and my mother said that we were wasting our time. "Who cares if it leaks? You should be spending your money where a potential buyer will see it. You need to renovate the kitchen!" Yes, she really said that.

 

I just wanted to add: some houses are really expensive just because some areas of the country are completely expensive. Where we live now our house cost almost $300,000. Where I used to live in central Texas you could get the same house for about $180,000. The cost of living here is ridiculous. And it's one of the cheapest areas in the state. They were asking for over $500,000 for a house like this where my parents live.

Edited March 11, 2009 by VanessaS

[PineFarmMom]

 

Bailing out those who fail to be good stewards only *enables* bad decision-making. Bail-outs won't produce *long-term* health in the economy. For that, we need people who can afford the houses to buy them.

 

I don't fear that we can't pull ourselves up out of this w/o gov't help......unless we cripple ourselves with fear.

 

I don't fear what will happen if our govt. DOESN'T step in, but I do fear what will happen after yet another "help" from the govt. Our govt. is entirely too large as it is. The biggest problems with the bailouts in the first place is it is like the parent who enables the child by yanking them out of every bad situation they get themselves into...they don't learn the lesson they needed to learn in the first place. We're to a place now where we are rewarding bad behavior in one ridiculous way after another...repeatedly rewarding bad behavior!! Good, responsible behavior winds up getting those responsible people taxed more.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Texas T
*

[Joanne]

The use of gov'tv funds in this matter aside....

 

I am saddened, once again, at the assumptions being made and generalities being asserted regarding the home owners being threatened by foreclosure. It is very similar to the assumptions made about people using food stamps, WIC, medicaid and TANF.

 

The truth is that the foreclusure issue is *multiicaused* and those facing foreclosure are in numbers far exceeding people who got into homes beyond their means.

 

As a related isssue, DH and I looked into alternative living arrangements. With our family of 5 (and even if we dumped the pets), we'd pay nearly the same per month in any other living arrangement except under a bridge. The only utility that would reduce is electric. Rent would nearly equal mortgage. I most certainly don't have first and last months rent (or I'd make a mortgage payment).

 

Please prayerfully consider how your assumptions about struggling people may be inaccurate or hurtful.

[newbie]

My middle ground is that we should prevent people from becoming homeless. Not because I'm a bleeding heart, but because they end up costing the system money. Kids raised with such horrible disruption cost the system money. For a middle ground, I vote a minimum help for those in trouble. If you have a Mc Mansion, eat a huge loss and get someplace small and in your range. If you live in an aging doublewide in a depressed part of the country, I think you ought to stay there, and be given a bit of help to do so.

 

How this would be administered is up to people far clever than me.:001_smile:

 

Then, nice strict sensible rules about lending....back to the old days of if you are a bad risk, you simply have to pay more in interest to "make up" for those in your situation who fail to pay.

 

Oh, and add to the "blame" list: TV. Show after show has people living in a much nicer place than mine with all the furniture perfect and new and matching, everything clean with out a sign anyone is cleaning it AND even the TV surgeons in sitcoms sit around all the time like they aren't working 70 hours a week to pay for all those spoiled teens and fancy cars. (pet peeve off)

 

Just a note, some people who bought "McMansion's are eating it and choking on it. HOw, may I ask do you downsize, its impossible because the mkt. has dropped. There is no way on gods green earth you can sell right now.

 

I agree w/Joanne. To me it seems like reverse snobbery, again not everyone bought into a bad loan, the mkt. slipped out beneath their feet. For example, due to this rough economy, my friend was able to take advantage of welfare services, her husband was out of work, and they needed it. NOw, he is back to work, they will drop services. That is how the system was set up and should be utilized. Just like unemployment.

 

There doesnt seem to be a system yet for homeowners that are in trouble. If they foreclose or bankrupt that stays w/you for seven yrs. Again, I dont think the money should go to lenders, it needs to help people that are in trouble. That is how most govt. funds are allocated.

 

Okay, tomato throwing may commence.

[Jennifer in NH]

I totally agree that not everyone who is facing foreclosure bought a house too pricey for them at the time. Life does happen..suddden illnesses or job loss etc... but as sorry as I may be that any of this happens I do not see it as the governments job to pay anyone's mortgage.

just more of my 2 cents.

[Joanne]

I totally agree that not everyone who is facing foreclosure bought a house too pricey for them at the time. Life does happen..suddden illnesses or job loss etc... but as sorry as I may be that any of this happens I do not see it as the governments job to pay anyone's mortgage.

just more of my 2 cents.

 

I didn't post about whether the govt (and therefore our tax dollars) should pay. I responded to the tone and sentiment in the OP and many of the subsequent posts.

[laylamcb]

I didn't post about whether the govt (and therefore our tax dollars) should pay. I responded to the tone and sentiment in the OP and many of the subsequent posts.

 

People are angry. Angry. Hence the tone.

[Jennifer in NH]

I didn't post about whether the govt (and therefore our tax dollars) should pay. I responded to the tone and sentiment in the OP and many of the subsequent posts.

I am, I guess, certainly not coming at this from the same angle as you are. I don't see any tone in the OP. Now i do have to admit that I skipped over a few middle pages since I last looked at the thread...not enough time here;).

 

FWIW I do get a bit annoyed when i think i might be paying for someone's bad descissions..whether it be an individual's or a bank's. So I do think Laylamb is right about people being angry...i guess it just comes pouring out sometimes in such a rather annonymous forum.

[5kidsforME]

The use of gov'tv funds in this matter aside....

 

I am saddened, once again, at the assumptions being made and generalities being asserted regarding the home owners being threatened by foreclosure. It is very similar to the assumptions made about people using food stamps, WIC, medicaid and TANF.

 

The truth is that the foreclusure issue is *multiicaused* and those facing foreclosure are in numbers far exceeding people who got into homes beyond their means.

 

As a related isssue, DH and I looked into alternative living arrangements. With our family of 5 (and even if we dumped the pets), we'd pay nearly the same per month in any other living arrangement except under a bridge. The only utility that would reduce is electric. Rent would nearly equal mortgage. I most certainly don't have first and last months rent (or I'd make a mortgage payment).

 

Please prayerfully consider how your assumptions about struggling people may be inaccurate or hurtful.

 

I am saddened that our "leaders" assumed that we, our children, our childrens children etc would be fine paying for this whole debacle. Angry too.

 

I think it is time to put aside hurt feelings. We need to be able to really talk over the frustrations we have about this historical bill that has been passed. Multiple bills at that. Watching our tax money pay for things that we do not believe in and on such a GRAND scale is a very frustrating position for us to be in.

[OnTheBrink]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how HGTV could possibly be the blame for people's irresponsible choices. If HGTV is causing you (you in general) discontent, don't watch it. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to watch it. I think that is a silly argument. Again, it comes down to personal responsibility. Don't do what you can't afford to do, or save up to do it. Don't buy a home you can't afford. Whatever has happened to common sense and making a budget?

 

(and, so no one gets hurt, I'm talking about people who make irresponsible financial choices, not people who get hit with catastrophic circumstances)

[Joanne]

I am, I guess, certainly not coming at this from the same angle as you are. I don't see any tone in the OP. Now i do have to admit that I skipped over a few middle pages since I last looked at the thread...not enough time here;).

 

FWIW I do get a bit annoyed when i think i might be paying for someone's bad descissions..whether it be an individual's or a bank's. So I do think Laylamb is right about people being angry...i guess it just comes pouring out sometimes in such a rather annonymous forum.

 

I think the assumptions and tone start with the long, qualifying list in the OP where they "deserve" their house and financing and the implication that many facing foreclosure didn't. The tone conintues from there.

 

The truth is that while aggreesive lending was a contributing factor, lay offs due to the economy are a significant factor as well.

 

It was easy for me to profess and claim my belief in small, limited govt intil I had a chronically ill dd uncovered by health care or facing a foreclosure when the adults in the home have 3 or more jobs between them.

[RebeccaC]

I am saddened that our "leaders" assumed that we, our children, our childrens children etc would be fine paying for this whole debacle. Angry too.

 

I think it is time to put aside hurt feelings. We need to be able to really talk over the frustrations we have about this historical bill that has been passed. Multiple bills at that. Watching our tax money pay for things that we do not believe in and on such a GRAND scale is a very frustrating position for us to be in.

 

 

Which brings me back to just how did we get all the leaders who over the past 30 or more years who sowed the leading that brought us this debacle or stood by doing nothing while it was being sown? Why we the voters gave them the right so just who should we be angry with.............. The leaders, the banks, the investors, the home owners who were given mortgages...... Naw, it is we the people who did or did not vote who did or did not hold their elected officials accountable. Yep bottom line it is the voters who also happen to be the tax payer who after years of keeping their heads in the sand are now suddenly angry...... and have forgotten to look in the mirror. I of course am a voter and a tax payer so I type this to my self and all the other folks of voting age........

[RebeccaC]

People are angry. Angry. Hence the tone.

 

Ah yes the angry awakened voter syndrome........

[kalanamak]

Just a note, some people who bought "McMansion's are eating it and choking on it. HOw, may I ask do you downsize, its impossible because the mkt. has dropped. There is no way on gods green earth you can sell right now.

 

Well, sell dirt cheap, rent even cheaper, pay off the balance you owe (I know this may take years), and get on with life. If you don't, get foreclosed on and ruin your credit. I'd take the first path.

 

We are not a destitute country. If you lower it enough, you can sell. Meanwhile, get out from under those property taxes.

[Jennifer in NH]

I think the assumptions and tone start with the long, qualifying list in the OP where they "deserve" their house and financing and the implication that many facing foreclosure didn't. The tone conintues from there.

 

The truth is that while aggreesive lending was a contributing factor, lay offs due to the economy are a significant factor as well.

 

It was easy for me to profess and claim my belief in small, limited govt intil I had a chronically ill dd uncovered by health care or facing a foreclosure when the adults in the home have 3 or more jobs between them.

 

 

I really have no bone to pick with you...honest!:001_smile:

 

The only thing I disagree with is that the OP specifically states she is not talking about illness or layoffs or deaths etc... I though she was pretty clear that she was mainly speaking of sub prime and people who bought too much house for their money.

 

But, I am coming from the OP's angle. We worked and saved for years, bought a house a long way from DH's work just to afford what we wanted without paying through the nose...we only bought what we could afford on his salary because we knew that I would be a SAHM once we had children...we rented for years, saved everything we could...went without furniture for a few years..no curtains etc... and, we have had no catastrophes happen. Now we own one house outright and pay off the other one on a 15 year mortgage..that we pay more on each month to pay it down sooner...again though...no bad luck along the way, and all our choices along the way helped too.

 

One last thing though before I go to bed...

If the tone really does bother you...don't read anymore...Susan did say we should all 'woman up" I can dare say there are threads that I don't go near...or my blood pressure would go for a ride!;)

[Hillary in KS]

If the tone really does bother you...don't read anymore...Susan did say we should all 'woman up" I can dare say there are threads that I don't go near...or my blood pressure would go for a ride!;)

 

(treading lightly and speaking gently)

I do understand your *not* wanting to be lumped in with irresponsible or risky borrowers. I really do! But, please consider a way to do so without expressing your hurt and disappointment with other people.

 

Joanne, being hurt or offended by other poster's "tones" seems to be your go-to emotion. Many of your posts begin with you expressing your hurt. But if you know that you are likely to be hurt by others' opinions in these types of threads, you may wish to avoid them.

 

Generalizations are generalizations because they apply to the widest group of people. The foreclosure and irresponsible borrowing/lending issues was in the news long before the recent massive layoffs began.

 

Your foreclosure issues are unique to you. As you say, not every family facing foreclosure is doing so because of foolish, irresponsible behavior. However, it is also true that not every family facing foreclosure shares their circumstances with you. It is unfair to be hurt or attempt to use emotional manipulation to shut down the discussion of others because you do not like to be lumped in with the majority.

[Catherine]

Well said! I agree. Satisfying as it would seemingly be to see the "transgressors"-whoever they are-punished, it's not the best way to handle it. I don't want to see more children homeless, regardless of how foolish their parents may have been.

[Elaine]

(treading lightly and speaking gently)

I do understand your *not* wanting to be lumped in with irresponsible or risky borrowers. I really do! But, please consider a way to do so without expressing your hurt and disappointment with other people.

 

Joanne, being hurt or offended by other poster's "tones" seems to be your go-to emotion. Many of your posts begin with you expressing your hurt. But if you know that you are likely to be hurt by others' opinions in these types of threads, you may wish to avoid them.

 

Generalizations are generalizations because they apply to the widest group of people. The foreclosure and irresponsible borrowing/lending issues was in the news long before the recent massive layoffs began.

 

Your foreclosure issues are unique to you. As you say, not every family facing foreclosure is doing so because of foolish, irresponsible behavior. However, it is also true that not every family facing foreclosure shares their circumstances with you. It is unfair to be hurt or attempt to use emotional manipulation to shut down the discussion of others because you do not like to be lumped in with the majority.

 

 

Amen.

 

 

And, I love your avatar!

[OnTheBrink]

(treading lightly and speaking gently)

I do understand your *not* wanting to be lumped in with irresponsible or risky borrowers. I really do! But, please consider a way to do so without expressing your hurt and disappointment with other people.

 

Joanne, being hurt or offended by other poster's "tones" seems to be your go-to emotion. Many of your posts begin with you expressing your hurt. But if you know that you are likely to be hurt by others' opinions in these types of threads, you may wish to avoid them.

 

Generalizations are generalizations because they apply to the widest group of people. The foreclosure and irresponsible borrowing/lending issues was in the news long before the recent massive layoffs began.

 

Your foreclosure issues are unique to you. As you say, not every family facing foreclosure is doing so because of foolish, irresponsible behavior. However, it is also true that not every family facing foreclosure shares their circumstances with you. It is unfair to be hurt or attempt to use emotional manipulation to shut down the discussion of others because you do not like to be lumped in with the majority.

 

:iagree:

[RebeccaC]

Well, sell dirt cheap, rent even cheaper, pay off the balance you owe (I know this may take years), and get on with life. If you don't, get foreclosed on and ruin your credit. I'd take the first path.

 

We are not a destitute country. If you lower it enough, you can sell. Meanwhile, get out from under those property taxes.

 

 

And what happens if you it is more expensive to rent? What happens if the bank won't let you sell low? Wow it really is so simple isn't it. Snap the fingers sell low and rent. What if the rental is foreclose on what then? I already posted about that.....

 

I know quite a few American Airline workers who live in their cars, as does another poster on this thread. There's a great option! Car living, van living, bummer tho in the Chicago winters. But hey getting on with life is what is important isn't it? Ya it might take years.......... when did 9/11 happen anyway hmmmmm..... Hey its already been years.......... and folks are still living in their cars........ Whats with that......

 

Oh the simple life no property taxes, no utilities, no rental payments....... ;) what is credit anyway and why should one care if it is ruined while living in a :auto:

Edited March 12, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Joanne]

Fwiw, I am not a fan of the aggregate of bailouts. Not only do I worry about their effectiveness in addressing the current issues, I worry about the very long term ramifications.

 

To address the poster about my "go to" emotion, I agree. The reason is that I mainly post only in threads where I *do* have a vested interest and personal experience. I am not a "chatty" poster; I post only in threads that hit my life.

 

Good or bad, I am at odds with much of the thinking in the homeschooling community on those issues; hair styles on children, people using food stamps, divorce, spanking, educating other people's children in a home setting, being clean and sober through AA instead of a strictly Christian organization, women as Pastors and likely a few others.

[RebeccaC]

Hey ya'll remember the supposed quote by Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake" So how far from her is the new mantra of, "Let them rent" Wow talk about the tea party that happened for good ole Marie it was a head loser wasn't it.

 

Let em rent sounds like a great slogan for a sticker bumper :lol:

 

Does anybody remember what happened to the Cook county sheriff who stopped putting folks out of foreclosed house when too many of them turned out to be renters who had not missed a rent payment? I know a couple of those came home from work and were locked out. Google and you will see he just did not think it was right to evict renters who had no idea that the mortgage on the rental was not being paid.

 

I saw a map the other day of where all the foreclosures were happening, CA, AZ, FL, MI, and Chicago and some other large metro areas. If you do not live in those areas it is easy to make this whole thing way too simple and pick up on the idea of just let'm rent. Hey any of y'all want to come and rent in Cook county? No worry there........ yep it's a darn fine solution:auto:

Edited March 12, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Tree House Academy]

According to the new rules I believe we can discuss this. Is home ownership a right or a privilege?

 

I am upset that either through my tax dollars or through coming inflation due to the Fed printing money, I will be paying for mortgages that should never have been written.

Disclaimer: I am not talking about the catastrophic situation in which one spouse suddenly dies or becomes disabled and unable to work and now they can't make mortgage payments. I really believe the instance of that circumstance is the exception, not the rule. Most of these foreclosures are irresponsible financial decisions.

 

I agree with your post 110%.

[Aggie]

 

Regarding a PP who mentioned American Airlines - she was spot on. Flight attendants took a paycut of more than 30%, and many of my colleagues are working crazy overtime to keep their insurance and homes - the bare minimum survival stuff, not luxurious trips or expensive cars! What used to be an 75-80 flight hour month for F/T is now a 110-120 flight hour month (not to be confused with actual on-duty hours, this is simply FLYING time) minimum just to maintain pre-9/11 earnings. In high COLA areas we have crewmembers and even ground crew spending nights at the airport or in their cars in employee parking because they have no where else to go. Many, many marriages affected which only worsen personal finances and exacerbate the financial problem for these families.

 

This is off track, but AA was poorly managed before 9/11. My bil flies for AA and has taken several paycuts, but there are very few companies who pay what airlines pay (or used to pay) for part-time hours. I think his union only allows him to fly 40 or 80hr/month and they are trying to get pre 9/11 pay re-instated. He was making 16k/month in 2000. Either way, it doesn't take an MBA to do the math in difficult times. It's no wonder they are in trouble if they've been paying 2 people to do the job of one person. Many people pulling in over $200k/yr put in more than 40hr/wk, yet pilots have the union saying 40 or 80 a month is a full time job.

 

RebeccaC.....about voters....I agree with most of what you say. For years we voters haven't looked past our own district or state to see what was going on. As long as it was rosey at home, it didn't matter what Congress was doing.

 

I don't know if this is normal or not, but the present Speaker does not accept any input from anyone outside her district. I see her point, partly, but that's quite a bit of power for one part of the country, I think. Anyone know if this is the norm for the Speaker?

[newbie]

Hey ya'll remember the supposed quote by Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake" So how far from her is the new mantra of, "Let them rent" Wow talk about the tea party that happened for good ole Marie it was a head loser wasn't it.

 

Let em rent sounds like a great slogan for a sticker bumper :lol:

 

Does anybody remember what happened to the Cook county sheriff who stopped putting folks out of foreclosed house when too many of them turned out to be renters who had not missed a rent payment? I know a couple of those came home from work and were locked out. Google and you will see he just did not think it was right to evict renters who had no idea that the mortgage on the rental was not being paid.

 

I saw a map the other day of where all the foreclosures were happening, CA, AZ, FL, MI, and Chicago and some other large metro areas. If you do not live in those areas it is easy to make this whole thing way too simple and pick up on the idea of just let'm rent. Hey any of y'all want to come and rent in Cook county? No worry there........ yep it's a darn fine solution:auto:

 

This is what I was trying to convey. In Ca. we are talking about inland areas that have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not tens of thousands. That is a whole house throughtout the rest of the country. Its not a simple cut dry situation.

 

I think its subjective, just as wages and individual circumstances.

[RebeccaC]

This is off track, but AA was poorly managed before 9/11. My bil flies for AA and has taken several paycuts, but there are very few companies who pay what airlines pay (or used to pay) for part-time hours. I think his union only allows him to fly 40 or 80hr/month and they are trying to get pre 9/11 pay re-instated. He was making 16k/month in 2000. Either way, it doesn't take an MBA to do the math in difficult times. It's no wonder they are in trouble if they've been paying 2 people to do the job of one person. Many people pulling in over $200k/yr put in more than 40hr/wk, yet pilots have the union saying 40 or 80 a month is a full time job.

 

 

 

I could be wrong but it is the FAA that stipulates how often a pilot and flight crew can fly and the unions just backed the FAA rules. If the the airlines do not follow FAA rules they get fine big time so I am not sure I would lay this all on the union. It is in part another fine example of big government messing things up. When I was in the air force I debriefed pilots and they flew quite a few more hours than what the FAA says is safe. The strongest union is the pilot's union. Pilots are a very small part of the company but out side of upper management the best paid.

 

My dh's union is in mediation with a federal mediator right now and they have been without a contract since last fall. The rub to this whole thing with AA is upper management did not take cuts and each got millions in bonuses for getting unions and non-union workers to take cuts and promising they would suffer with the workers and as soon as the company did better they would give back what the workers gave them. They have gotten raises and bonuses up the wazoo since then but my dh has not even gotten a cost of living raise. The company is over heavy on middle management and working folks like my dh to the bone because they think cutting the folks doing dh's job and hiring more middle management who literally do nothing is the way to go. It has cost them plumb freight contracts because freight can't be moved fast enough with out workers to move it. So it is still being mismanaged.

 

However it was making money before 9/11 and it has become very good at hiding its profits since then.

 

I know this is a spin off from the OP however folks are looking at this in a simplistic way, "I am financially responsible and the majority of sub prime folks are not." It is not that black and white. There are a lot more folks as in mom and pop who are in hard for reasons other than greed or irresponsibility. To be honest some of what I read here smacks of self righteousness and an almost total lack of mercy or empathy. It is my tax dollar and I am angry.......... well the folks loosing their house paid taxes too....... did they not... is it fair that their tax dollar bail out the banks that have made tons of money on their backs? The truth is life is not fair. Tough luck sub primers...... The bankers got your tax dollars and you got the street.

 

There is probably no way to know who was irresponsible or greedy and who has a legitimate hardship when it comes to the little guys. However it seems like folks are all to willing to think believe that the majority are or were irresponsible or greedy and I think that in part it is a bit of political spin they have swallowed and allow to grow into bitterness. That of course is my opinion........ and not worth getting ones panties in a bunch over if one disagrees with my opinion.

 

In the mean time we count the empty houses for sale and the ones boarded and take bets on what the bids will be on the houses up for auction and wonder what happened to the people who lived in those houses.....

 

But hey its great cause all of those who were smart and responsible can now snap up the foreclosed houses for cheap. Yeah for them they are the golden children on whom fortune shines. Who cares what happens to the folks who lost a dream as long as fortune shines on the smart who do their homework. And so Marie says, "Let em eat cake (rent)" Poor Marie she wasn't with out mercy she was just clueless to the suffering of her countrymen.

Edited March 12, 2009 by RebeccaC

[lovemyboys]

Soph, This is the crux of the entire issue. As a former banker, I dealt with the Community Reinvestment Act. The banks always hated it. But they had to abide by it. However the Clinton Administration put new teeth into the Act

......

But to get back to your original question.... is home ownership a right or a privilege? It is a privilege, imo, that is reserved for those people who have the financial means to afford it.

 

Government should have stayed out of the banking business. They totally caused this mess. Now people are BEGGING governments to fix it. Good luck.

 

 

I saw Alan Keyes interviewed recently. One of the comments he made was that it's foolish to ask a bankrupt government to fix a bankrupt financial system.

 

Thanks, Jackie, for such a clear explanation of the process starting back with Jimmy Carter in the late 70s. It's infuriating to hear some of the same people who had a hand in this (in other words, power) in the last 10 or 20 years, now claim complete innocence and lack of involvement.

 

:glare:

[elbac]

It's been an interesting read ladies!

 

In reference to the OP, I do not agree with a bailout for those that are risking foreclosure due to a bad loan decision that should never have been made. As others have said, I hold those currently at risk of foreclosure due to other extenuating circumstances in a different light -- however -- I still do not feel that it is the government's responsibility to come in for a rescue, and I can honestly say that I would still stand by that opinion if I were at risk of losing my home tomorrow.

 

Now, do I want others to lose their homes or, for that matter, would I want to? Heck no!! However, I do not feel that the problem is something the government should be taking care of. Our government needs to stop taking on roles that it was never intended to perform.

 

Home ownership certainly isn't a right, but it's assumed by much of our culture to be better than the alternative. Even using the "right vs. privilege" terminology is revealing.

 

I have to agree with you there. The husband of a couple we know is quite often rolling his eyes about his sister who lives in a larger city and chooses to rent. Although he lives in an area with *significantly* lower property values, and knows it, he seems to think she's supposed to buy a home, even though it would likely cost her another $300-400 a month between home owners insurance and taxes (not to mention any repairs!).

[Soph the vet]

I didn't post about whether the govt (and therefore our tax dollars) should pay. I responded to the tone and sentiment in the OP and many of the subsequent posts.

That was the tone of desparation you must have picked up on.:lol:

Joanne, did you read my disclaimer or not? I am not a heartless wench, OK?

[kalanamak]

And what happens if you it is more expensive to rent? What happens if the bank won't let you sell low? Wow it really is so simple isn't it. Snap the fingers sell low and rent. What if the rental is foreclose on what then? I already posted about that.....

 

 

 

Well, then, you'd lose the house anyway. I just say, get out before you are put out. And if things aren't so bad you'd lose the house, then this isn't the situation I'm talking about.

 

As to credit, some people believe they have futures and shot credit makes it worse.

[RebeccaC]

Well, then, you'd lose the house anyway. I just say, get out before you are put out. And if things aren't so bad you'd lose the house, then this isn't the situation I'm talking about.

 

As to credit, some people believe they have futures and shot credit makes it worse.

 

You really are clueless get out to where. Where do these folks get the first and last months rent for another place to live? Let em cake......... but there the problem was there was no cake...... In CA they are living in their cars and there is no one to buy up the thousands of houses that set empty there. Well there is China but they only want the big houses. Sounds nice, China owning a good chunk of the American dream. Not just federal debt but houses in American neighborhoods. Gives a whole nother meaning to the term slum lord.

 

I know folks who begged their bank to let them sell low and the bank said no. They asked to have the loan modified the bank said no. They had the house on the market for more than a year and tried to do the smart thing. You know what they did they stopped paying the bank so they could save the money for the first and last months rent, better known as the deposit, which was good chunk of change when you have a family and need more than one bedroom. They spent 3 months sitting in the house the bank would soon take possession of and just before eviction they found a place to rent. If the bank had reopened the loan and modified it the folks would have staid on both had jobs with AA and second jobs and they had kids. That is the culture of sub prime when it really looks like you can't stay stop paying so that you can save for the rental deposit otherwise it's the street.

 

Everyone has a future shot credit or not. My point is some times credit can not be save so whats the point of worrying about it.

 

It was bad legislation that brought us this mess and it is legislation that should redo if possibile the havoc reaped. It does nothing to help fix the suffering to be smug about the right choices and the blessed life some have had and to make a leap to they made bad choices let them suffer. Whew, Thank God we did not.

 

For all of you who are angry what does getting mad do? Nothing to but to further polarize the nation and rob you of your peace. Of course being mad has fuel some moves in history mobs in France or in Russia during certain times of social upheaval and my didn't both those turn out fine. Write your congressman, protest, serve at a soup kitchen but stop the we were so smart and did the right thing whine it does nothing to help. It sets up we are better than they mentality and so they deserve to suffer.

 

Every week we help with a soup kitchen and several food pantries guess who is standing there getting food. Folks who used to be middle class are now the majority, not the folks with drug problems or similar problems. Folks who are embarrassed to be there but who are desparate.

 

Those of you who say you know you would not take the money if you are losing your house have no idea the primeal emotions and desperation that losing a house brings out in a person. I think it is more accurate to say I hope I wouldn't but I haven't been there and from the high ground I feel like I wouldn't but if I it looked like my kids would be living in our van........ or a shelter...... or foster care or......

 

Just for the record I am sick at the money being thrown around by our government. I do not agree with it but I am also sick of the mantra of let em rent because I have seen where that simple smug solution leads.

[Audrey]

I agree with your post 110%.

 

That's inflation rate adjustment agreeing, right? ;)

[Spy Car]

I've been wondering if during this financial crisis and with the home foreclosure rate rising if it might be reasonable to have a governmental relief program that would aid the unemployed or those whose business income has been effected negatively, but which still protects "the peoples" money?

 

My plan? Help "qualified" home-owners meet their mortgage payments through the period of personal financial crisis, but in return have the government take an equity position in the home that would take preferred position for re-payment when and if the house was sold. The plan would also include provisions for repayment of the aid at reasonable interest rates as an option once the economic crisis has passed.

 

Defining a "qualified" homeowner would take some doing, but would not include carrying loans of people who bought homes that were far beyond their means. Rather it would be limited to people whose purchases would have passed a "reasonableness" test under the circumstance that prevailed at the time of the homes purchase.

 

Something of this sort seems like a good way to keep families off the streets and in homes, without the disruption this could cause both families and communities, and would still protect the tax-payers dollars in the long run.

 

Thoughts?

 

Bill

Edited March 12, 2009 by Spy Car

[newbie]

I've been wondering if during this financial crisis and with the home foreclosure rate rising if it might be reasonable to have a governmental relief program that would aid the unemployed or those whose business income has been effected negatively, but which still protects "the peoples" money?

 

My plan? Help "qualified" home-owners meet their mortgage payments through the period of personal financial crisis, but in return have the government take an equity position in the home that would take proffered position for re-payment when and if the house was sold. The plan would also include provisions for repayment of the aid at reasonable interest rates as an option once the economic crisis has passed.

 

Defining a "qualified" homeowner would take some doing, but would not include carrying loans of people who bought hopes far beyond their means. Rather it would be limited to people whose purchases would have passed a "reasonableness" test under the circumstance that prevail at the time of the homes purchase.

 

Something of this sort seems like a good way to keep families off the streets and in homes, without the disruption this could cause both families and communities, and would still protect the tax-payers dollars in the long run.

 

Thoughts?

 

Bill

 

Are you running in four yrs? I think its a great plan.:D

[sandellie4]

This makes me sad. It's all so complicated.

 

Sandy

 

You are right on this! Most of the time it is cheaper to own than it is to rent. I know a few folks who are stuck with a sub prime loans due to loss of income because of 9/11, they work in the airline industry, and they can not afford to pay rent in the Chicago area nor can they afford their mortgages or to transfer out of O'hare. We watch as friend after friend/co-worker looses their house and usually their marriage. American Airlines did not go bankrupt but a whole lot of their employees did to keep the company from going under. Folks who before 9/11 made good choices when it came to their finances and who of no fault of their own lost 1/2 to 2/3rds of their income. Some took sub prime loans out on their houses, which were not Mc Mansions, to pay their property taxes, to send a kid to school, to pay medical debt, fix a car, fix their roof which was leaking badly, ect........ The folks we know are not pilots but mechanics, baggage crew, fuelers, ect... Working Joe's who put in 15 or more years with AA before 9/11, most without college degrees, who used to make a living wage and could not find jobs after 9/11 that would have matched their pre-9/11 incomes. Folks who moved from middle class to working class through no fault of their own.

 

We know an AA couple with 6 and 10 year old kids who lost their home a year ago and found a condo to rent, came home one day to find out the condo they were renting was foreclosed on and over night they lost the place they were renting and their deposit. Until they could raise the money for another deposit they were living in their van for quite awhile. They managed to get another house to rent in a not so nice area and guess what that was also foreclosed on and they lost that deposit and....... He is drinking now and they are headed for a divorce. What happened to them, 9/11 and just trying to keep their heads above water for the years since they gave up income to keep AA afloat and then this current crisis. Folks who made good choices before they began to live out the concept that life is not fair and really had very few choices they could really make.