|
Mark
|
Judged:
1
1
Insider wrote: Those castigating the borrower in this case are missing the point. Countrywide and other lenders like it MADE THEIR PROFITS off borrowers not not knowing the terms of their mortgage. Have you ever talked to one of these mortgage salespeople on the phone? They rush you thru choices, make wildly untrue and misleading statements and steer customers into the best product for the company (and the salespeoples' commission) all the while sounding like they are looking out for the customer.
I don't see anything in the story that suggests this borrower used disrespectful language, threatened to sue or otherwise engaged in "disgusting" behavior.
It's pretty easy for a multi-millionaire, who has preyed on these types for years, to think a request for assistance in a historic real estate downturn is not worth listening to.
And for those who think this is a "non-story," that is exactly what the corporate interests in this country want you to think. It allows them to game society at large without anyone paying attention. I agree with what you are saying, though I think the borrower is responsible for taking out the loan in the first place. Our mortgage is through Countrwide, and the company is corrupt to say the least. They hound us day and night with their calls trying to sell us the next great loan deal. My thought is, if I pay the bill, don't call me! In the future, I will get my financing through a local bank, with local ties to the communities they serve. These big mortgage conglomerates take advantage of their customers.
|
|
david a belanger veteran
|
TO MR KENNEDY
FROM : ALL AMERICANS
HELP!!!
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
Has Already Received His PERSONAL BAIL-OUT
Under Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s .. Former leadership at
Goldman Sachs, the company has been instrumental to its penetration of Western
capital and other markets.-- Henry Paulson was vastly effective in Communist
China’s .. Interests and enabling their access to Western economic assistance
and high technology
In late January 2006, Goldman Sachs purchased a stake in the Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China’s biggest bank, for $2.58 billion
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson''''s .. Personal stake .. In this transaction
was $25 million
A PERSONAL BAIL OUT for : Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and His
Criminal Friends
(Mar 27, 2008 (ruters.com) BBC)... White House Resists Pleas for .. Mortgage Bailout
WASHINGTON (Reuters)- As clamor rises for federal help for homeowners
who face losing their homes .. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson .. Seems
to be digging in heels against the effort.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson sounded a tougher note than ever against any
possibility of bailout for individual mortgage holders, singling out the growing number
going "under water" as their loans exceed the diminishing value of their properties.
please this is a simple thing to fix, why are you bending over for all of the wallstreet scum.
you have the right to do what this paulson/ben did for wallstreet,saying they had to to save america. so you can say the same thing, but this time you would be saveing america, and not wallstreet.
you must come out and stop the forcloseing of all these millions of homes, now,
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MANDATE THAT ALL MORTGAGES THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT FROM 2000 TO 2007 BY ALL AMERICANS TO BE RE-FI A.S.A.P. NO EXCEPTIONS,
NO MATTER WHAT THE CREDIT IS, THEY WILL RE-FI EVERYONE AT JUST OVER PRIME, AND AT A RATE OF 40% OF WHAT IS OWED ON THE PROPERTY( PERSONAL HOMES ONLY)!!
WHY, BECAUSE MOST HOST ARE SELLING AT FORCLOSER FOR 20 TO 30 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR, SO AS TO WHAT PAULSON SAID TO BEARSTEARN 2 DOLLARS IS BETTER THAN NO DOLLARS SO TAKE THE DEAL..NOW REMEMBER ALL OF YOU, IF THIS COMPANY IN 6 MONTHS LOST 98% OF THEIR VALUE FROM 700 BILLION TO WHAT IS IT NOW. AND FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND BUY IT FOR NOTHING, WHAT IS THE REAL VALUE OF ALL THESE HOMES???NOBODY KNOWS, SO WHY NOT JUST START OVER??? AND STOP THE BLEEDING FOR ALL AMERICANS.
FOR-AMERICA@HOTMAIL.COM
DAVID A BELANGER
FOR COMMON SENSE THIS IS SO EASY TO FIX DONT MAKE IT HARDER THAN IT IS PEOPLE.
AND LOOK AT THIS MORNINGS NEWS, THE GREAT POTATOHEAD PAULSON,AND BEN ARE IN TALKS WITH ANOTHER WALLSTREET FIRM GOING DOWN. MERRILL LYNCH!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT MORE BAILOUTS FOR WALLSTREET COMING.
|
|
Jim C
|
Waiting for 2012 wrote: I agree: The borrower was stupid. Unwise would be a more acceptable term. Waiting for 2012 wrote: I also believe Countrywide was greedy and preyed on stupid people. I agree with the greed portion and the predatory actions that the lender followed but would rather like to think these people were attracted to the house, initial payments were affordable and that before a reset they could refinance into a better loan term. With the decelerating home appraisals and increased foreclosures plus tougher standards these loans are hard to escape from. This factor is leading to walkaways and foreclosures in record numbers. These loan types were far too commonly issued. Waiting for 2012 wrote: Maybe not all of the borrowers were stupid; some were greedy and arrogant themselves. What made them think they were entitled to own a house they couldn't afford? The loans were affordable with the introductory terms. After the reset usually the payments go up 40% or more. This is usually 360 to over a thousand dollar increase in monthly payments. It would not be affordable in a lot of situations, 2.5 million at least by some estimates. Waiting for 2012 wrote: Why were the banks allowed to make loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, and then they changed the laws to make it impossible for people to declare bankruptcy? Deregulation of the housing industry allowed cheats to make loans the borrower could not ultimately afford. HR 3915 is one bill that is set to criminalize approval of loans to those who cannot afford and also from steering borrowers into more dangerous loans if they were qualified for better loan terms. Regarding bankruptcy, you can still file once the home makes you insolvent. The present chances of saving a primary residence is blocked by an exception which protects the lender over every other kind of loan. It is in title 11 section 1322(b)(2). The exception was part of the code since 1978. The loans back then were high money down and fixed rates for the most part. A lot of BK districts did not take the provision literally until the mid 1990s. With the current breed of loans this exception only promotes lenders to issue bad loans since there is no danger of modification of terms. HR 3609 is set out to remove that exception to help out an estimated 600 thousand homeowners through bankruptcy keep their homes and recover through wage earner plans. Waiting for 2012 wrote: Why should people be allowed to declare bankruptcy for taking out loans they can't afford in the first place? Initially they could afford the loan. Once it resets there is more money owed than money available to pay, thus insolvency and bankruptcy filing. However since the home loan is not negotiable a great deal of filers would surrender their primary residences in full debt satisfaction. Waiting for 2012 wrote: On the other hand, why is it people that have had catastrophic medical problems and can't pay their hospital bills--yet they can't declare bankruptcy--end up homeless? WHY IS THAT??? If you have catastrophic medical problems that lead to bills which you could not pay back, you can still file. It will cost you a lot more and you need to go through more regulations and forms but you still are able to seek BK relief. Waiting for 2012 wrote: Why do CEO's have to make multi millions of dollars a year when they're just extra bodies taking up space on the golf course? 12/21/12 can't come too soon for me!!! We can stop the greed without having to go through Armageddon to do this. It does now appear that with all of the uncaring and supportive of greed people out there, the world may end on or before the supposed expiration date for mankind.
|
|
Chicago South Side
|
Big Tuna wrote: <quoted text>
And if someone is talking on their cell phone, makes a left turn on a red light, gets flattened by by a semi and needs a kidney, I'm supposed to give him one of mine.
I'm sure we will have no problem solving the threats of global warming, peak oil and the proliferation of nuclear weapons with the intelligent people you reference to. Wait a minute smart guy, global warming, peak oil and nuclear weapons proliferation are all our fault- so according to your logic, among all the other geniuses in this thread- we deserve our fate. Bring on the suitcase bombs I guess right? Ah, yes, logic, you can't escape it.
|
|
Chicago South Side
|
Jennifer wrote: <quoted text>
I don't see what's wrong with any of your suggestions.
If you smoke then you know you are going to have health problems later in life. It's up to you to pay for them.
If you join the National Guard in peace time then you must have had something to gain from that. You can't get all the benefits then change your mind once you are actually required to do your job.
If you have sex with a guy you don't know well enough to know he will provide for a baby, then you should be financially responsible for that child.
If you buy a house with a mortgage which has terms you don't understand, then that is your fault and nobody elses. Unless your signature was forged or obtained by force then no crime has occurred.
If you sign where it says 'I have read and understand the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement' then that's what you should have done. Jennifer, I guess the point I was trying to make was that it's sort of sad to see how basically cold and rotten people can be. You are a great example of that point. I hope you or no one in your family gets: cancer, shipped to Iraq, knocked up by an A__hole or homeless. Those are all terrible things no matter how stupid (or evil in your case) a person might be.
|
|
Jim C
|
Reality Checkpoint wrote: Caveat Emptor - ever heard of it?
It means 'buyer beware.'
In a world filled with sharks {and - goodness knows the lending industry are - collectively, sharks} who - even remotely in their right mind, would sign a debtor obligation note of a mortgage for their home without being aware of what it means {even in the most basic terms}? Only a fool, moron and/or idiot would do such a stupid thing! NO, while I certainly think that lenders who didn't underwrite risk and ratings agencies who certified these bundled risks as 'AAA' should ALL be forced out of business, any 'moroon'{as a smart and famous rabbit would call 'em} are getting what they deserve.
When you make no effort to understand what a re-set means on an adjustable mortgage, maybe you don't deserve to live in a house. It's time Americans were held responsible for their own actions [and/or inactions].
Why the heck should I [a taxpayer who secured a jumbo fixed at 5.7% having put down 20%+ to avoid PMI ten years ago} pay for other people's stupidity, greed and laziness? I'm sick and tired of it.
You walk on railroad tracks - you get hit by trains. Don't expect me to bail your dumb b-hind out of the mess of your own making. Putting up beware of wild animals in the suburbs would not suffice. The laws will supply the keepers for these predators to live. If we want to see them, visiting hours should not be too difficult to accommodate.
Congrats for being able to put over 20% down on a jumbo loan. I hope it was from honest work and not as a predator.
As for the 'house-flipers'{who speculated on market appreciation and quick turnover}, like any business that can't meet its obligations, they get to meet the bankruptcy court judge - and rightfully so. The only ones who should be bailed out are the elderly who were actually preyed upon by lenders with preditory practices. Otherwise, go find yourself a refridgerator cardboax and an underpass to live in/under - IDIOT!
Most species push their 'moroons' out of the nest, cave, hive, etc, etc, as soon as they perceive that they're not hitting on all cylinders. In this country we reward the 'moroon' and penalize the prudent.
Hum, a nation of grasshoppers with not many ants. It's a system/society that's bound to collapse. We are not grasshoppers or ants or any other socialistic animal where the worker dies for the queen. It is hilarious that you would support cruel predatory capitalistic behavior with socialism. We have lions,tigers, bears and other predatory animals behind bars. We need to do that with the predatory lending institutes. Would you allow lions, tigers and bears to roam your neighborhood? I would not feel comfortable with predatory animal kingdom creatures hitting the street.
|
|
Jim C
|
Rob wrote: Dear Daniel Bailey,
Don't buy something you can't afford. Car insurance, home insurance, medical insurance, food, gas, predatory loans. I guess with the jobs with wages one could support a family going off shore we will all soon be needing to depend on the survivalists to live off the land and the militarily inclined to load up their weapons and do their best to anhilate all the scum leading us to a probable 12/12/12 end of life situation.
|
|
Ed S
|
AKK wrote: It's really surprising how many unsympathetic people are out on this site.
These are good people who have lost their shirts. We're talking little old ladies who are raising grandchildren, and ESL families who needed help filling out the paperwork, or single parents who are teachers that lost their retirement funds. And these are companies that actually invest research in tactics to aggressively deceive people. For example, companies might purposefully design envelopes to look like junk mail so that people throw important documents away.
Enjoy your frappacinos. I hope it's never any of you, or your kids, or your elderly parents that loses a house, college fund, or retirement fund because some guy in a suit and bad tan needs diamond-encrusted toilet for his private jet. So you want us to feel bad for those that don't take the time to investigate the largest, most important purchase of their lives? If I tell you I'll give you $250k without knowing your employment, bank, or credit history, will you not question this? Will you not have an attorney present to represent you at the closing? If you say "no" to these question than yes, you do deserve all the grief that comes with your incredibly bad judgement. Heaven help the family that is subject to your gross stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Jim C
|
Dis the Politicians wrote: <quoted text>
Let's see. A guy signs a contract for a loan that is likely the biggest he ever took out in his life, probably several times his annual salary, and he wants sympathy because he didn't take the time and effort to understand how it worked?
The lazy idiot deserves what he's getting. There are probably more lazy idiots that are wel off financially and others with both political and financial support like our current President. There still is no excuse for a lender to approve a loan which is ultimately not affordable once the rest takes place.
|
|
Jim C
|
Dis the Politicians wrote: <quoted text>
I agree with you fully. No one, borrower or lender, deserves a bailout. It's simply unjust for people who behave responsibly to have to subsidize the irresponsible. If the laws change to remove exceptional treatment of lenders for primary residences at least 600 thousand homeowners will not need bailed out. The value of the home and whatever the conventional fixed rate is, plus a risk premium will allow homeowners to save their homes through wage earner plans. Dis the Politicians wrote: <quoted text>
A bailout will also simply insure that this kind of thing will occur over and over again. Currently there is no bailout from taxpayers being planned. Adjusting the faults in current law will reduce the need for a bailout. Dis the Politicians wrote: <quoted text>
Also don't forget the role of Congress in all this. By pressuring lenders to make marginal loans in the name of non-discrimination, they bear a part of the blame for this entire mess. Since the lenders did not apparently understand the goal of financing these homeowners to also be likely to be able to sustain these loans and the lenders only gave initial affordable terms, congress does need to correct the oversight from a misinterpreted directive. Dis the Politicians wrote: <quoted text>
The banks, it turns out, were right in stating for years that low or no money down loans were bad credit risks. They weren't redlining, simply being prudent, way back when. Low or no money down are not the cause of loans failing. The faulting factor is the excessive burden of these loans given once they reset into terms which may make the homeowner insolvent. Since the lender did not comprehend that issuing a long term and affordable loan was the goal, they probably do not understand that concept very well either.
|
|
Jim C
|
Dis the Politicians wrote:
<quoted text>
A bailout will also simply insure that this kind of thing will occur over and over again.
<end quote>
Once bitten twice shy will prevent current homeowners with problematic loans from repeating their circumstances again.
however if nothing is set into law to prevent a new phase of homeowners who previously were not entrapped in these loans from being trapped, making currently entrapped homeowners would only serve to make foreclosure scavengers profit and sink home values and tax revenue based on property value plummet. At the same time the crime rate around these foreclosed properties and those struggling to survive will increase the do unto others as they have done onto you people becoming the new predators simply for the desire to survive.
It is much more rational to save the homeowner and prevent the possibility that future lenders will ever try this again without consequence.
Once these protective of the consumer bills pass and it is illegal instead of simply immoral to issue loans under the conditions set out, we will not see more designed to fail loans marketed.
Since the homeowners are currently set into insoluble conditions with these loans, lower return loan modifications are just and will soon be the law of the land.
|
|
Jim C
|
Wrong wrote: <quoted text>
1. They did nothing illegal. It was immoral and if not for deregulation of the industry their actions would have been illegal. Soon these immoral actions will be illegal once legislation which regulates the industry are put into place. Wrong wrote: <quoted text>
2. We are NOT talking about ursury here. It is an ARM and the jump really isn't all that great. A 40% plus increase in payment from anywhere from 350 to over 1000 dollars a month is pretty bad. I agree that the loan is really not that great, however the reset interest rates are not minor inconveniences. Wrong wrote: <quoted text>
They expected their house would increase in value and it didn't. Eureka! stating the obvious, they didn't increase. Wrong wrote: <quoted text>
They took a gamble and lost. Absent the real estate melt down we would have never heard about these people but now because the press is making a story of it we are supposed to feel sorry for them, NOT! Obviously your concern is more toward how your game goes and how much more you can acquire at other's expense. The regulations are to reduce predatory ideals as you profess from increasing homelessness, collapsing world economies and downright corrupt business practices. Wrong wrote: <quoted text>
3. Look at their income to mortgage ratios. They are outrageous and any moron should have been able to tell the loan was untenable. Some even lied about their income to get l;arger mortgages. These ratios would have substantially been of more value if used for determining the loan approval than at the foreclosure auction. Now we need to reduce the fallout from the lenders failure to setup these loans properly upfront. Wrong wrote: <quoted text>
I AM NOT SORRY FOR ANY OF THEM!!!!
Their ineptitude has cost me a crap load of money so don't expect me to cry for them.... Ineptitude would be more applicable to the lender. Though I am not cheering that you lost a lot of money because of the ineptitude for approving loans with unfit terms, I am just making you aware that 40,000 dollars a year is not going to go up to 57,600 a year like the loans needed to be practical terms for these loans. It would be more realistic to expect the salary increase to be 41,760 a year. A 44% increase in income is not likely so the loan terms should not have anticipated it feasibly. A 4.5% increase in earnings would be more expected. It seems the lender is once again at fault for calculating the profit margin from source in at least 10 times the proper expected ability the borrower could be expected to afford.
|
|
Jim C
|
Cheap-shot wrote: I agree with Mozilo. If your to stooped to read the contract your about to sign the you get what you deserve. So there is no doubt that Mozilo and the rest of these items sub from the human species were purposefully developing these plans in order to steal monies from homeowners. Only there s a major problem with their plan, they tried to pul money from a source which is not generating the revenue which these contracts were set to pull in. You can't expect to pull sources from a low wattage generator without knocking out the whole grid, thus the effect of their over demand for funds blacks out a substantial portion of the housing grid, which then knocks out economies throughout the world. Unplug the heavy Mozilo from the grid and hook him up to the proper power generating machine which will feed his and his likes.
|
|
Jim C
|
Ryan wrote: The term ARM explains it all: Adjustable Rate Mortgage. Everybody knows that adjustable almost always means "up". I don't have any sympathy with people who can only look at what they pay today and completely oblivious to the future. And worse, these people expect everyone else to bail them out. With that said, I still think the choice of word by Mozilo is a poor one. He could have written "Outrageous" instead of "Disgusting" and no one would bat an eye. The problem is not necessarily about ARMs as it is the problem with exploding ARMs being issued. Adjustable could reference a wrench also which would still be set to limits varying on the capacity of the tool.
|
|
Jim C
|
Christian wrote: Wow, lots and lots of "i've got mine and I was smart so to heck with anyone else" going on here. Didn't your mothers, fathers, teachers, preachers, priests, rabbis or imams teach any of you a sense of shared obligation or at least sympathy. Who is worse, the guy who got screwed or the guy that screws people and then thinks their whining is disgusting? Easy, the person who is handing out products should be honor bound to not endanger his perspective consumers. If one buys ammo, they do not expect them to blow up in their face. The same goes with exploding ARMs. I don't think the unsympathetic faction of people is as great as the threads lead one to believe. I am however surprised at the amount of degenerates from the human race there are that are far from the human race. It sounds like the same political climate that lead to the rise of infamous entities like the figure in Germany from WW II is inbred in a lot of barbaric specimens that should be segregated from the human race. The nation will either work together to find solutions or run into a state of anarchy and lawlessness for a total collapse of all that presently inhabit this planet.
|
|
Jim C
|
Big Tuna wrote: <quoted text>
"Home Buying For Dummies",$14.95 on line or free to use from the library. it saved me thousands on my first home. If you are too lazy to do some research or ask some questions then as P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute" and you find your stuff in the street. Then PT Barnum should take in these lenders and put them in a freak show. Believing in a bearded lady or some other gimmick for entertainment is unlike purposefully endangering economies and homeowners nationwide.
|
|
Jim C
|
Yeah right wrote: PULESE!!!!! You knew what you were getting into when you took out the loan. It's your fault......and your problem. I'm pretty positive you read the restrictions AND you were told about them as well. My taxes will NOT pay for your mistakes! There is no legislation that currently is being addressed which is considering to burden the taxpayer. The legislation currently being addressed is set to prevent marketing of these loans, steering customers into dangerous loans when their credit standing would qualify them for a fixed rate at fairer interest rates. It is our nation's fault for not having proper legislation in place which would criminalize these types of unsupportable loan types.
|
|
Jim C
|
The Little Bull wrote: I am really tired of hearing about these dolts that claim they didn't understand their mortgage so they want the investors and or government to bail them out. If the market went the other way would they pay another 15% in taxes? I think not. Without risk there can be no reward. As far as this guy goes he owned the house for 16 years so even if he had a 30 year fixed before he refinanced he should have had substantial equity in the house. My guess is that he tokk cash out to lever up and live a life he couldn't afford in the 1st place.
As far as the comment earlier to shared responsibility I feel none as it has been proven that Karl Marx's experiement with shared responsibility was a dismal failure. All of these peopple want to keep the upside and want those of us that are more conservative financially to cover them if the market goes against them. Sorry not my problem. A financial conservative would be a Marxist. China's economy is really excelling because in order to get richer your type would redistribute the wealth from their cheap labor and add an artificial burden to the price as if it were produced by an American worker making a decent working and living wage. Once China gets all those businesses over there and the greedy "conservatives" have all their industries nationalized with all the machinery etc, Cuba as a country which booted out organized crime and kept the industries will be comparatively like a pea shot from a straw to China's battleship artillery. Swish around all of the Commie equal distribution of wealth with all the right wing centralized accumulation of wealth and with both ideologies you devalue the whole mechanism of bartering with chits. It has a goal of motivating people to work together and trade one chit for their labor. Get service from another and encourage the like throughout others, in essence the ideal of a middle class.Equal distribution causes the loss of motivation. Excessive imbalance of economic ability destabilizes, lowers worker motivation, causes people to go hungry and the like. The middle class is the ideal vehicle for getting the world to run productive, caring, fairer and in a more harmonious condition. Far right as with far left are but an imbalance, equilibrium is met when the pendulum is at rest as with the middle class.
|
|
Jim C
|
Also not smart wrote: <quoted text>
That's what real estate attorneys are for...To sort through all the fine print that we don't understand. Would you go to court without an attorney? Attorneys should not be required to buy property without being set in a bad lending vehicle. Regarding going to court without an attorney, it depends upon what is the course of the matter. If you feel that if you presented your case against th charges being brought up against you, you would not need council. If however you were cheating or doing something along those lines an attorney would be advisable. Buying a home should be a fairly simple matter without a lot of complications and dangers. It should not be based on fooling a purchaser into a situation which induces financial instability.
|
|
Jim C
|
TomH wrote: I was offered an ARM. I did some reading and found out how ARM's work.
I went with a traditional mortgage.
If you are so stupid that you signed your life away without first doing a little reading then you deserve what you get.
If you are a lender and give loans to those that you know cannot afford them you get what you deserve.
The rest of us should not bail out those that were either stupid or greedy. No one is knocking on my door wanting to pay my bills and I'm not willing to pay for others stupid actions. You are with depreciating home values and a faltering economy.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
