The Housing Bubble

Just get the #@$% out and get on with your lives.

Which, in my perfunctory reading of his work, is what I believe University of Arizona Law Professor Brent White is telling people.

Actually, since my wife does not want to be responsible for damages, etc that occur while she is absent, we are staying put. We are frequently seeing “disaster response” trucks in the nabe fixing up water damage from frozen pipes on abandoned units.

So no, we won’t be getting out until after ownership transfers. We were ready to move shortly after auction, excited to move on, which was supposed to take place on Nov 18. But for some reason it has been rescheduled 5 times.

Upon advice of a city attorney, in the case of “owner occupied” mortgages, it’s best to wait till the bitter end. We are wishing for the bank to auction off the sucker while we keep it in decent shape and live for “free”.

We sunk 20% down and three years of payments into this home(160k) unlike some other 0 down “victims”; recouping some of this money by staying seems logical; and as Ncinerate stated yesterday, that’s the way the cookie crumbles in non-recourse states. The bank gets the house and that is it. And if it doesn’t want to take it back in a timely fashion; well we will be waiting them out here despite your kind suggestion that we leave.

Abandoned homes do not stay in good shape while the bank sits on its heels; we can at least make the nabe seem less like a ghost town; keep the house disaster free; and thus protect the bank’s asset. Really why leave when we can stay without paying until after the foreclosure. And like the lawyer said, “If we leave; no cash for keys to relocate our happy family” Sorry if you are peeved to shoulder that burden as a taxpayer. we are taxpayers too, just never made enough money to pay federal taxes. a diligent bank would have noticed my wifes yearly $6,000 take home and not loaned her 300k, and said sorry hun you cant afford this house.

They made the loan; we believed that we would be able to refinance as we were told by appraiser, mortgage broker, UHS; they were all in consensus; now is a great time to buy they lied. If they were so dishonest why spew at greedy yet gullible FB’s trying to make the best of an unfortunate investment decision. Yes we were stupid and made a bad decision; but the bank did not care about us continuing payments on our now worth 50% house. It sold loan to investers; packaged as golden when they knew it was crap-to eliminate their risk. So the loan makers had no vested interest in our continued payments on the loan; that was some other suckers problem. (Oregon PERS system is suing Countrywide for selling them junk disguised as AAA).

get the !@#$ out, irrespective of who owns the house. Just get the #@$% out and get on with your lives.

Gently eluded????

Different group requires different handling. Have you not attended lately?

MikeinBend: Why leave once ownership changes? At least wait until they ask you to leave. No need to drag it out in court, but so long as it is possible that the buyer out of the auction might want to negotiate a lease with you, wait and see.

In the meantime, get your more valuable stuff out. If they try to pull some illegal self-help at least you don’t have to worry about missing something important.

‘a diligent bank would have noticed my wifes yearly $6,000 take home’

Whut the hey…you bought a house on that? You had no income yourself?

Years ago when I was in boot camp the company commander told a group of folks not to be #$%%ing late for the church services or they’ll have my balls. Someone laughed and the company commander asked what was so funny. Then everyone started laughing.

I’m not knocking you mikeinbend. It’s not your fault that the bank is taking their sweet time taking the house back. Under the “right” situations (the home debtor actually taking care of the house) I could see this even being beneficial to the bank. Unfortunately, so few people squatting in their homes are caring for said home. They just let it fall to pieces around them - and justify it because they got a raw deal and shouldn’t have to worry about it.

I’ve looked at a -lot- of homes lately, and I can’t say I’ve seen many of the mythical well-cared-for foreclosures. The home I ended up buying was bought/remodeled by some genius at the tail end of the bubble (when prices went down the first 20-30%). He or she snatched it up as a fixer upper for considerably under the current market price (still more than DOUBLE what I just paid for it) and spent a -lot- of money making it beautiful inside and out. I guess he called the bottom and didn’t realize that home would eventually sell for 1/4th of it’s bubble price. After all that work, they never even occupied the home. They walked away from it as the market collapsed around them.

So, I got lucky. It’s held up well in it’s vacancy and there is no way I could buy an equivalent home and make it similarly nice for anywhere near the price I paid. Almost every home I’ve looked at that met my pricing requirements needed 10k+ just to make it liveable, and considerably more before I could really be proud of it.

Anyway, I digress. Live in the home as long as you can, save what money you can. You may as well get the maximum benefit you can out of a bad situation. Use the extra cash from free-housing to pay off other debt, put yourself in the best possible situation you can for a future with damaged credit. You’re on the hook for liability on that home until they’ve -legally- taken away the keys. May as well utilize it. You’re not the one who screwed up the ownership chain with such horrifically flawed lending and packaging.

I’ve got a friend that’s into his second year without making a home payment. He’s actively fighting things. As far as he’s concerned the handful of hours he’s spending legally fighting the foreclosure and binding up the process is worth it for the benefit (he lives in a nice home on a golf course, equivalent rent is close to 2k/month, his mortgage is even higher). He’s banked -every- single payment into a savings account - this is a guy who CAN afford to pay his mortgage. He wasn’t even the one who got this started. He called to discuss options and the bank told him he needed to be 3+ months delinquent before they could help him. He called back in 3 months and they (GMAC) said they needed to pass the loan back to the main holder to do a modification (they were just servicing the loan), but the loan needed to be current to do so. He explained he wasn’t going to do that, so they went ahead and made the loan current for him and kicked the whole thing back over to someone else (can’t remember who off-hand, fannie mae maybe?). Anyway, he called them to ask about some sort of adjustment and they said “we can’t do anything until you’re 3 months delinquent”. Fast forward a -long- time, and he’s still sitting in the house. It’s a home that wound up being mixed up through MERS and the whole ownership chain is all kinds of screwy. His law experience is letting him keep throwing up new obstacles and so far so good. He even rented a room to a friend of his and has been raking in -that- income as well.

In the end, his credit will be just as screwed either way. He may as well live there until that day of reckoning comes. Mailing in the keys is a poor financial decision under these sorts of circumstances. Eventually they’ll get their ducks in a row and forge enough documentation to legally remove you - why make it easy on them?

Hell, maybe homedebtors making some waves on this will help bring -proper- legal lending standards to the forefront.

“mikeinbend” I get your reasoning for staying in the house. In fact I was totally getting where you were coming from until this line right here:

” a diligent bank would have noticed my wifes yearly $6,000 take home and not loaned her 300k, and said sorry hun you cant afford this house.”

Either there is another factor here that you are not telling us about that made her salary irrelevant(like a much larger salary on your part), or you were just as negligent as the bank for not realizing that a $6,000 salary is not enough to afford a $300,000 home.

At the end of the day you are the one making the purchase. The bank does have a responsibility to make sure the loan fits the circumstances but you hold ultimate responsibility for doing your own number crunching and deciding if you can handle the loan in your situation.

I say live there as long as you can for free. It isn’t like the bank is going to do anything quicker if you leave.

Once the bank finally forecloses the house will end up being auctioned at their fantasy price. Of course the only buyer at that price will be the bank. (If they sell it for less than the outstanding loan balance they would have to book the loss then). So it will become REO for the bank and it will just sit there because the don’t want to “flood the market” and lower Real Estate prices. So the home will sit empty deteriorating (like the rest of the shadow inventory) while the bank keeps it on their books at their fantasy price. All the banks want to do is to keep complaining about not being able to foreclose on houses and hope that people don’t look too close at what they do once the house is actually foreclosed on.

My credit is not tied to this home. Oregon is not community property state, so my credit will not be trashed by wife’s foreclosure; nor can the bank look to my assets to satisfy my wife’s debt. May be different in AZ.

We had considerable assets is how wife got the loan, and why we thought we could afford this house. Bought first home in 95 when I had a good job, and it appreciated up to 900k from 275k. We sold! Then we wheeled and dealed playing landlords on free and clear property, living in one/renting the other/ selling them once they appreciated; while raising our kids as stay home parents. No money worries for 10 plus years so no complaints-not too many kids get two stay home parents.

Got caught with our pants down with this last one. You mean they can DEpreciate too?? NO WAY!

Now our assets are mostly since liquidated due to medical expense/and loss on another property that we sold in 2009. And I work as a partially disabled (3 cervical surgeries-one not covered by insurance-they refused it after pre-approving it?? that one cost us $50k and I ended up needing another fusion anyway) sub teacher/tutor making 12k per year. Got my teaching license after hurting my back as vegetable brokering and surfing was too physical for my body.

Only reason I am not on wife’s title or loan is kismet- that her fico was higher so I was not used by the mortgage broker on the no-doc loan. I did, last year, take our remaining liquid assets and bought, in my name, a nice home from a builder on a short sale for $118k. That is our ace in the hole-and where we may go when evicted from new owner, which will be the bank. But its rented out whilst we wait for the bank.

But since wife owes 300k but house is “worth” 200k, 100k over what the minimum bid will be at the courthouse this means the bank will end up owning it/we will stay till they ask us to leave-sorry exeter. Then we will f’n get on with our lives. We’ll see if they postpone the Feb auction date again.

Mikenbend said: “My credit is not tied to this home. Oregon is not community property state, so my credit will not be trashed by wife’s foreclosure; nor can the bank look to my assets to satisfy my wife’s debt. May be different in AZ.”

Yeah, Arizona is the same way. No recourse, no connection between wife and husband’s credit, bank cannot come after your assets to pay off a delinquent or deficient home loan. Similar story on car loans (tons of people would come in with a history of repossession on the wife or husband, and buy a vehicle at the lowest possible rates thanks to their spouse’s perfect credit).

Things change when you’re talking about second and third leinholders or home equity loans, but that’s a whole different ball of wax.

Anyway, I’m with ya mike, stay in the house until your name isn’t on it. Use the time and saved money wisely to put yourself in the best possible situation coming out of it. As the saying goes, when life gives you lemons…..

“Yeah, Arizona is the same way. No recourse, no connection between wife and husband’s credit, bank cannot come after your assets to pay off a delinquent or deficient home loan.”

Ncinerate, you are mixing issues here. Arizona is a community-property state.

That means that debts taken out during the marriage are JOINT debts.

It may not be showing on your credit-report now due to the way the bank is reporting it (your wife’s SSN only), but legally you are fully liable for the joint debt.

Because it is a non-recourse state and a purchase-money loan, the bank cannot come after you for a deficiency.

But they certainly could put it on your credit-report if you defaulted and they felt so inclined.

No prime, I am not confused.

Even in a community property state, an individual debt such as a home loan is still an individual debt. While it becomes my obligation to pay it as part of the married couple, it cannot end up on my credit report in the result of a foreclosure. My credit is not liable or affected because I am not an obligor of said note. The bank wouldn’t even have the necessary information (my SS# for example) to place this upon my credit in the first place. Finally, because there is no recourse there cannot be a legal judgement placed upon my wife for any deficiency (should such a foreclosure happen).

As long as nobody does anything stupid (like signing up for a recourse second mortgage or equity line of credit), a homedebtor in AZ can walk away scott free with a bad spot on their credit report, and their spouse who was never on the home loan documents would have no blemish to show for it.

The same thing happens for cars. Repossessions do not get carried onto a spouse’s credit unless they were placed on the loan at the beginning.

even in community property states an individual debt is still an individual debt - you would not be liable since you are not an obligor of the note.

+1, the fraud/bank con job scenario, as opposed to the fault of the borrower, seems pretty lame given its the ‘2nd (or 3rd or 4th) time, especially when whatever possible previous ‘fraud’ by the evil bank should have raised everyone’s hackles (and maybe, just maybe prompted the FBs to actually read the docs THEY SIGNED in twenty places this time around).

Agree w/ Ex - their not paying anything, get the f#$% out already.

From someone who’s been there, the bank tells you to ignore the giant balloon payment on the back end and make your “trial” payments for consideration of a permanent modification. Is it the home loaners fault? Yes. Is the bank at fault? Yes.

Plenty of blame to go around, but don’t let the banks off the hook for lying like the animals they are.

Is he the same FB that never bothered to read the terms of the original loan application? At what point does the FB begin to take responsibility for his own actions?

It’d be interestering to read in the terms of the original loan application where it says the governement would bail out the banks if enough FBs couldn’t make the payments, however, the FBs are on thier own.

So much for trickle down economics.

You’re not factoring in a good percentage of buyers who put 20% down, who read their loan documents, and who had circumstances outside of their control change. Certainly you can just hand the keys over, but when the bank says they’d rather work with you, wouldn’t you want to give it a try?

“Plenty of blame to go around, but don’t let the banks off the hook for lying like the animals they are.”

Refusing to let the FB’s off the hook is not the same thing as letting the banks off the hook. Too many people seem to think you can only approach it from one direction or the other, and when you hold one side accountable for anything you are letting the other side off the hook for everything. It’s not so.

Refusing to let the FB’s off the hook is not the same thing as letting the banks off the hook.

I know but there are 2 issues here which illustrate the gross unfairness in the big picture and the reason why Banks should be greatly vilified now while FB’s not.

1. I’d put FB’s (most but not all) blame for the housing bubble at about 15% and Banks/Gov/Wallstreet blame at 85%.

But here’s the problem.

2. FB’s have been held accountable for maybe 90% of their 15% share of the blame. (90% because some received free “rent” and some mods)

However Banks and WS have been held accountable for only maybe 5% of their 85% share of the blame.

I would be interested to see other opinion percentage numbers plugged into #1 and #2 above.

FBers are getting “free” houses” right now. As badly screwed up as the banks have screwed up the paperwork, they might even be able to live there for several years.

The problem is, eventually, the “ownership” problem will be figured out. At which time, foreclosures can and will proceed. The banks OWN the FBers, but the FBers don’t know it yet.

And does anybody really think the banks aren’t eventually going to get around to hunting down those people that couldn’t pay, but chose not to? Or sell off all their bum loans to collection agencies? If the statute of limitations on collecting debt is 5 years, does anyone think that the banks won’t lobby their lapdogs to change it to ten or twenty years?

It took ten years to make this big steaming pile, it will easily take ten years to get it straightened out. “Paybacks are a bi#ch” will become the new National Slogan.

I don’t care if they get to live in a house for “free” for five years; better them than me.

Just to respond to you a bit xgsfixr - I’d say you’re 100% correct in the instances where a bank has recourse.

Those home equity loans, states that have recourse-mortgages, etc etc etc. The bank isn’t going to forgive and forget :).

But in a state with no recourse as part of the loan you signed in the first place, what can they do?

It is what it is, they finally figure out who owns the home, get a -proper- legal case to evict, and the homedebtor goes on his merry way with a blemish on their credit.

No muss, no fuss, the homedebtor lives in the home for a long time rent and mortgage free with no negative repercussions.

I’m not saying I’m jealous, and I certainly never want to be the guy squatting in my home hoping the bank doesn’t get their act together -this- month. Still, I don’t hold it against someone to make the most of a bad situation. Eventually the whole mess gets sorted and everyone moves on with their lives.

There you go, trying to be logical in an illogical world.

illogical world

So, your position is that distributional greed is illogical genetically?

(Hwy sneaks in a plug for: “The Logic of Life” by François Jacob)

We’re just overpriced compared to the wage slaves in Third World countries who can/will work for a tiny fraction of what we do. They don’t mind living in mud huts and surviving on a bowl of rice per day.

The CEOs, on the other hand, are worth every penny, as they have all that “talent” that needs to be retained!

So a few won the lottery. I actually know more than a few people who had their incomes downsized who were told to go pound sand.

The banks did the temporary mods because it was good publicity, but it sounds as if they continued to book the revenue as if the old amount was being charged and received - acrual accounting does that. If they were to make the change permanent, they would have to write off the entire amount that they did not receive during the temporary modification because making it permanent means they don’t have the right to collect the differnece.

The hit directly to profits comes at the time the mod becomes permanent even though the stopped receiving the money at the time the temporary mod went into place.

And people are surprised that they don’t want to make the mod permanent because?

“The banks did the temporary mods because it was good publicity, but it sounds as if they continued to book the revenue as if the old amount was being charged and received - acrual accounting does that. If they were to make the change permanent, they would have to write off the entire amount that they did not receive during the temporary modification because making it permanent means they don’t have the right to collect the differnece.”

I f***ing hate bankers!

“Greedy banks and greedy borrowers. If you really think about it, who is worse? ”

Greedy banks and greedy borrowers are what makes capitalism work. However, banks that have chosen to be part of the FDIC banking system have agreed to far higher standards of behavior concerning their financial activities than have greedy borrowers. This agreement allows them to be part of a highly profitable enterprise, but they are likewise held to be far more accountable for their behavior than the average greedy borrower.

Therefore the moral relativism of some which tries to equate the actions of a lying, greedy FB, with the actions of a lying, greedy banker, is simply wrong. The latter is held to a far higher standard, for obvious, and voluntarily agreed upon, reasons.

whatever you purchased with THE BANK’S money
like they do for reserve levels

Hey, I’ll give you $2.00 USD for every “special” $1.00 USD that I’m allowed to convert into $9.00 USD…then at a “certain point in time”, say to everyone: “I seem to have a loss in my reserves…”See ya!”"

Where’s the punishment? ;-/

Agree Alpha-Sloth …The Banker has 2 people to answer to ,the
borrower and the loan investor . You can’t just take the deposits of the Nation and mis-rate securities and breach duty to underwrite loans just so you can make a middle man fee . The Bank is screwing 2 entities when it makes a bad loan or the
Bank breaches their duty to prevent fraud . The party that puts up funds for the loan or the depositor in the bank and the
borrower who ends up losing when fake prices crash . The
party that has the power to screw two parties has a higher
standard .

To even suggest that it the responsibility of determining their credit limits goes to the borrower is absurd . Why do you have to fill out loan applications if not for the fact that you have to qualify ? Lenders just make nice fake loan packages and Borrowers going along with it isn’t the idea and in the end faking out the loan investors ,that might be a pension plan ,,,no that’s not the idea of lending ,that’s a fraud market .

The borrowers will lose the house on a bad loan .and the investor will lose money on the bad loan ,but does the middle man who made the stupid loan get the pain …..no not if they transferred the fraudulent or bad loan to someone
else .

We can not have a system by which the Middle Men Lenders and any other Middle Men along the way think they can create a fraud market and pass the liability to the final bag-holder after they breached their duty to begin with in the original underwriting . Mozillo had a 80% foreclosure rate and the agents he was dealing with were all a bunch of fraudulent
middle men lenders who raised prices off the charts in many areas artificially by their fraud . Its up to Lenders to prevent cash back fraud also along with appraisers . There was nothing justifying these increase in prices but PR BS .

To throw all appraisal principals and lending underwriting to the wayside is what the industry did . The mania induced borrowers will lose also ,but the lenders are the responsible
party to prevent fraud from a borrower and determine what the borrower can afford and rate the risk proper for the secondary market . The Borrowers were just pawns in the
Ponzi-scheme market ,not to say that their greed or fear of being priced out of the market didn’t motivate them . Believe me a lot of borrowers have lost a lot because they didn’t protect themselves against liar loan agents and liar real estate agents that didn’t have their best interest at heart .

Do you as taxpayers like the fact that you get to purchase these junk loans that were fraudulent . You get to pay for the middle man allowing a bad loan and fraudulently passing it to a fund
that was conned . The middle man gets to keep the ill-gotten gain of the commission ,the borrower loses the house and their credit rating ,so who is the victim …..you or maybe the loan investor is the victim .

The borrowers would never of gotten the money to begin with
had it not been for the massive fraud in the ratings on junk loan paper . You can blame the Big Boys on Wall Street for
wanting to make money on this Ponzi scheme because they were the market makers by fraudulent credit ratings baked by fraudulent loans and appraisals .

Also ,how can the lenders go after the borrowers for fraud when
a good percentage of the time the originating loan agent helped that borrower commit perjury on the loan application ,or the borrower didn’t know how much fraud ended up on those loan applications . The originating loan agents were a bunch of fraudulent jackasses who were making big commissions by talking a borrower into leverage on a toxic loan and they promised them they could refinance . Selling leverage was the name of the game at the time ,it sounded good at the time so people believed it .

Hit the mark appraisals is a violation of long held appraisal principals . The fact that good appraisers were blackballed out of the industry and the remaining appraisers wouldn’t get work unless they went along with the Ponzi-scheme was another fraudulent aspect of the check and balance system being bought off .

If a borrower had the belief that at least the appraisal was correct ,why wouldn’t they think they could always sell at least at their purchase price / So in that way the borrowers were the victim of massive appraisal fraud in part the result of loan fraud . If a borrower knew that they were competing
with 10 buyers who didn’t really qualify than would they of made that offer ….not likely . So, the borrowers were victims of a fraudulent market . When borrowers see a appraiser signing off on a appraisal they believe that the value as been confirmed .

For people who have just joined this blog go back and see the kind of stuff that was going on in the height of the fraud market on back posts . Underwriters that wouldn’t conform to the fraudulent underwriting were also blackballed or
pressured to approve junk . There was one case in which a underwriter was threatened with a baseball bat by a loan salesman if they didn’t approve the loan . Real estate agents were also threatening appraisers that if they didn’t hit the mark they would never get any more appraisals . Real Estate brokers were approving deals they knew to be fraudulent and Escrow agents were not reporting cash back fraud and checks going to third parties coping out to a plead that they are neutral agents . Well when you have double escrow instructions and the lender gets one and you close on other instructions ,maybe you are part of the fraud . Double escrowing was rampant ,in large part done by the real estate people which raised prices unfairly . I could go o and on to the degree that the so-called professional aided the fraudulent loan market ,that the Big Boys at the Top passed to the loan investors by mis-ratings off AAA for fraudulent junk .

In this way ,the borrowers were duped into thinking the values were solid and at worse they could sell the house and
they weren’t really taking on risk ,they were using leverage .

So everyone was conned and the biggest Con Artist of them all got balled out by trillions . To add insult to injury ,they kept most of these criminals in place and the opportunist
borrowers are just riding the tide of” where is my cheese “.

In the end ,its the responsibility of the Lenders not to have a fraudulent market with no check and balances and Ponzi-schemes from the Wall Street Boys is the real culprit along with government closing their eyes to it expecting Wall Street criminals to regulate themselves . Make no mistake ,
every industry was contorted ,corrupted ,and became fraudulent to allow for this fraud market that reeks such damage ,as crime always does .

-the Great

I can see George Soros on TV in my house! I’m a billionare!

But they wil mail the keys in anyway, and now the house is worth even less, so the lender’s unrealized loss is even bigger.

It merely delayed the inevitable and possibly made the problem even worse.

“Poorly run? I think it worked quite well”

I agree. A few more actions like these and the banks will lose whatever’s left of their defenders- at least those that aren’t paid to defend them. Right, combo-pus?

I am not a defender of banks, I’m just pointing out what they are about. Same with the FBs; I am pointing out what they are all about as well.

There is a S/M relationship going on between the banks and the FBs, in case anyone hasn’t noticed. Each seeks out and is need of the other. One readily dishes out pain, the other readily receives it.

“I am not a defender of banks, I’m just pointing out what they are about. Same with the FBs; ”

On the contrary, you regularly defend the banks’ actions, and just as regularly attack the FBs. That’s about as ‘fair and balanced’ as a certain news channel, that also pumps out kochtoganda.

“There is a S/M relationship going on between the banks and the FBs,”

Kochtoganda is getting strangerer and strangerer. Now it’s a consensual act of naughtiness? You could almost imagine banksters saying to each other, ‘ya know, I think they like it when we beat the last dollar from them’. I guess it helps the few that aren’t psychopaths to sleep at night.

These FBs willing and repeatidly go back to the same banks that screwed them once before. Or twice before. Or maybe more times than that. Is that correct?

If your answer is “yes” then you must conclude the FBs are getting some sort of payoff, some sort of reward for repeatidly getting screwed.

Nah, he’s not defending the banks, he’s only trying to sort this out, make sense of it all - the same as everyone else.

To find the biggest and most consistent defenders of the banks I suggest starting on Capitol Hill and taking a stroll down to Pennsylvania Ave.

“These FBs willing and repeatidly go back to the same banks that screwed them once before.”

The FBs were guilty of believing getting into a modification plan wouldn’t be a futile and pointless, even counterproductive, action. They were guilty of believing the banks were actually honest businesses, which for several generations after FDR they were.

The FBs entering into loan modifications were trying to do the right thing, but were guilty of not realizing that the banking system had turned into a corrupt racket.

I go back to the original crime of the market that made the bad loan to begin with . All that follows is just desperate people doing desperate things ,or borrowers trying to be opportunistic
in getting free rents or getting a house for free . They saw
Bankers bailed out so the moral hazard translates to the
borrowers . ‘When am I going to get something for nothing ” says the borrowers . Borrowers justify this because they feel
conned . The ones that cashed out their equity and already spent it ,verses people who just had the market value crash ,are
playing the system . A low down buyer who had the market crash on them isn’t losing much except a a ding on the credit for a while and often times they stay in the house rent free for a while so they win actually ,even if they have to move eventually .

THe aftermath of a fraudulent lending and appraisal market is not a pretty thing . Crime is always ugly in its aftermath .especially when the crimes damage is transferred to the innocent and the culprits get away with the heist .

You know, back when the bubble was still inflating, people on this blog seemed to understand that the FB’s were being idiots, and at the end of the day they were going to get what they had coming to them because of the financial decisions they made. People here also understood the role the banks played in all of this.

The posters on this blog are pretty smart…..certainly smarter than the people who inhabit most other similar forums. Why then have so many of you gotten to the point where you can no longer see the role the buyers paid in all this? Some folks are so passionate about blaming the banks that they are blind to all other factors. Yes, the banks screwed people over, and yes people screwed themselves over by buying the houses in the first place. I don’t care how slick the lenders were, people allowed themselves to be concinved that their $30,000 salary could sustain the mortgage on a $500,000 house.

You don’t have to absolve one side in order to hold the other side accountable.

“kochtoganda”

Nice to see sombody taking those Soros talking points and running with them. Nice Job!

+1000

“You know, back when the bubble was still inflating, people on this blog seemed to understand that the FB’s were being idiots, and at the end of the day they were going to get what they had coming to them because of the financial decisions they made. People here also understood the role the banks played in all of this.”

“Nice to see sombody taking those Soros talking points and running with them.”

I actually invented ‘kochtoganda’ myself. Not bad, eh? Maybe Soros will hire me now? (Low six figures, please. I’m a ‘wordsmith’)

‘Kochtopus’, of course, was coined by someone else- a leading libertarian:

Lew Rockwell dotcom
“The “Kochtopus” is a derogatory name coined by the late Samuel Edward Konkin, III, an anarcho-libertarian, for the group of libertarian organizations funded by billionaire Charles Koch. (Konkin, a gifted wordsmith, also is responsible for the term “minarchism” for the libertarian view that accepts a minimal state.) Murray Rothbard often used this term when referring to organizations within the Koch ambit, with the Cato Institute foremost among them. To say the least, Rothbard’s enthusiasm for Cato was not unbounded; and employees of the Kochtopus often treat Rothbard with hostility and contempt. Further, the Kochtopus has displayed unremitting hostility toward the organization with which Rothbard was associated from 1982 until his death in 1995, the Ludwig von Mises Institute.”

(Konkin, a gifted wordsmith, also is responsible for the term “minarchism” for the libertarian view that accepts a minimal state.) ;-/

Is there not a “TrueConsistency™” in all “TrueBelievers™”?

(Hwy ponders the libertarian view that accepts adopts a minimal state in sexual expression…)

Youtube music plays: “Behind closed libertarian doors…”

For many years, the Arizona economy seemed to be driven by Growth. As in, building houses for people who are going to come here and sell houses.

Well, fat lotta good that did us.

Nowadays, our Dear Leaders seem to be clueless as to what our state’s Plan B will be. Unlike Michigan, which just elected Rick Snyder as governor.

I’m not of the same party as Rick, but dang it, I was impressed with his 10-point plan for Michigan 3.0. To the point where I signed his campaign bus when I was in Ann Arbor back in October.

I actually agree with you only in so far as you can agree with me that the laws we pass, and the conduct with which we behave, are subject to the agreement of society. Wars are fought over who has a “right” to what. Instead of seeing the plenty we have all around us, we dicker and struggle to achieve more at the expense of those less fortunate. And yet, for another to receive as “help” the fruit of my labour, I must still produce more than I require to suffice. Actually, this is not entirely true either. As a slave, I could be forced to produce some amount that is even insufficient for myself, and yet still have that small amount taken from me. Hopefully our nation does not devolve back to slavery.

This seems like the best example given of why we should voluntarily give more to support these important social programs. If you think starving masses are going to come ravage your house, you should send an extra $1000 to the state welfare agency to help them give food to the hungry so that doesn’t happen to you. Don’t you think?

Or are people going to come and rob you anyway despite this because you have an ipod and they don’t? I very well understand communicable disease, and human nature. Wasting this money on a horribly inefficient state and federal gov’t is NOT going to help the problem.

As an aside though, some very efficient private charities could use your help to support truly needy people. Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD), and Big Brothers/Sisters of America could all use your donations of both time and money. These are all A+ rated charities through several easily googleable charity rating agencies.

This seems like the best example given of why we should voluntarily give more to support these important social programs.

It’s a Randian utopian fantasy. Name one successful modern country that works under this model. None. Why? Because it doesn’t work. If it could, it would but it can’t so it don’t.

Example: Mental Health. Dismantled 30 years ago but private voluntary entities did NOT fill the void. Why? Because they don’t.

+1. We still have a general welfare clause in the Constitution. Contrary to what the Adminisration & Republicrats would have us believe, it was not written with Wall Street in mind.

That is promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare. Major difference. Libs conveniently overlook that.

Seriously, I have never understood why people go to the doctor for a cold for anyone over the age of 5 and under the age of 80. It is a cold. What the heck is the doctor supposed to do?

My Husband has an eye infection on top of his Glaucoma issue (both eyes).It came on fast and furious, after normal office hours.

Tuesday night, we had no choice, he had to been seen in our HMO Urgent Care. They called in a Specialist. He’s eye is better today, thank God. It was a dangerous situation.

Urgent Care was full of Hypocondriacs.

“His eye is better today…”oops

“It is a cold. What the heck is the doctor supposed to do?”

From what I hear, they give you a bunch of antibiotics ( a ‘v pack’ is what I often hear), which, of course, have no effect on a cold virus, but does ensure that we’ll create ever more antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Why they continue to do this, I don’t know. But I know people who go to the doc for the sniffles, and that’s what they all say happens. (They think it works, because their cold is gone in a few days, which would have happened anyway.)

I guess my feelings were shaped by my first exposure to antibiotics administered “just in case” I also had a sinus infection by a physicians assistant at the clinic in college. Less than 18 hours later I was dashing out my 9:00 lecture to throw up in the hallway. Seems I was sensitive to that antibiotic. Oops.

From what I hear, they give you a bunch of antibiotics ( a ‘v pack’ is what I often hear), which, of course, have no effect on a cold virus, but does ensure that we’ll create ever more antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Why they continue to do this, I don’t know.

This is your freemarket in medicine at work. They know that if they tell you to go home and eat chicken soup and rest that you will go to the doc down the street for your antibiotics. Now just at the time you start taking the antibiotics your virus is coming to an end so everyone that get’s them thinks wow this really got rid of my illness.

I’m with you on the stupidity of going to the doctor for a cold, polly. Of course some employers mandate that you be under a doctors care if you’re taking more than 3 days of sick leave.

The US has ALWAYS been like this.

One can only hope.

Actually John Garner said that, not Henry Wallace. He was the first of FDR’s three VPs.

They’ll have to reduce benefits and/or increase taxes.

FWIW, 45B is a drop in the buck compared to the 1.5T total deficit.

I expect that they’ll just print money to keep SS humming along, while telling retirees that there is no “inflation” and hence no COLA, even though the grocery store, gas station, medical and untility bills will beg to differ.

As Han Solo said when trapped in the trash compactor on the Death Star: “We’re going to be a lot thinner.”

Seriously
compare SS to TARP and other bailouts. It’s nothing.

Exactly Slim….I just don’t respond to blind anger sometimes…

What the hell is up with this “kick grandma to the curb” attitude these days?!

My god! You people should be…

I meant to say, that’s what the guy is doing now in his golden years, so it’s good he has those skills.

And it doesn’t have to be your illness. A spouse’s or child’s can do you in.

Wait until the FB pension kicks in and hit them then? That would be pretty low, which means that banks are definitely going to to do it. I don’t think I’ll ever move to a recourse state.

Not only is the plan balance itself protected from being attached, but some of the income once received also has some more limited protection, I believe.

My parents were advised to keep their SS payments in a separate account, and not commingle with the 403(b) RMDs, and not commingle either one with any other income.

I’m not clear on the limits of this protection, or how secure it actually is. YMMV, etc etc. I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet.

It can’t be attached but they can go after regular funds in your accounts. It’s good to not take out too much at any one time, especially if you see a judgment coming, but if you’re on a regular withdrawal schedule that part is subject.

What I wonder is, if the creditor knows you’re scheduled to take out X much a month, can it just garnish it on a monthly basis, like child support…another thing they could do to some gullible people is get them to sign an agreement to pay out of retirement proceeds.

“What I wonder is, if the creditor knows you’re scheduled to take out X much a month, can it just garnish it on a monthly basis,”

Thats exactly what I was thinking. And Oxide, what is so ‘cold’ about this? It’s a creditor collecting owed money from a debtor. ?? To me, it would seem pretty perverse if someone got almost all of their income from a pension, but was able to default on whatever debt they wanted while simultaneously protecting their primary income stream from collection. Why shield pension income? A lot of Feds and S&L pensions are quite high (esp in Cali apparently). I would think the repayment calculations would consider an annuity-like cash flow stream just like any other income - fair game. I proposed this idea to the teacher and you should have seen his face - ie, “what do you mean they could take my pension income as payment for my debt?” As if that was some crazy concept - you paying/people collecting on personal debt.

How old is now?

37 for a thirty year mortgage, 57 for a ten year mortgage. Social security kicks in full at 67 for tail end boomers and younger. So people should have their houses paid off before they can get full bennies.

I can see the moon from my house….. I’m an astronaut!!!! lmao.

“His mother was a US citizen, FACT, which makes him a US citizen, FACT.”

does not equal “Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year AND THE OTHER PARENT IS A U.S. NATIONAL.

Are you really that dense? You really quoted one of the exact scenarios that proves your ‘FACT’ wrong to support your initial post?

Anything else ?

It makes him a citizen, FACT. Are you really that dishonest as to duck and weave from the original issue? (of course you are. You’re a “lawyer” )

Anything else?

Anything else ?

You’re Hero, Rupert MUrDoichk, can’t run for the US Presidency, what a pity.

Anything else ? (Mags57)

Mags57, you’re unspoken hero, Rupert MUrDoichk, can’t run for the US Presidency, what a pity.

“To Serve Man” is a cookbook…….

He was actually born in Afghanistan, where he was kidnapped by aliens, trained as a sniper, and was parked in his stroller on top of the grassy knoll in Dallas two years later.

So not only is he an alien, he’s an illegal alien.

Yes, they went along with just about every bit of unconstitutional, immoral BS he pushed.

Now hold on Pilgrim, it wasn’t “hate” hollerin’ at all, …all I said, calmly, was “Shrub is “yellow” cake naked and had a lil’ *ick as his VP!”

BTW, what happened to the massive anti-war protests we used to see?

I musta missed lil’ Opie’s: “He tried to kill my daddy! / axis-of-x3-or more-evils speech on National TV”

Otherwise, …to heck-with-you-you-Non-Hawaiian!

I’m glad you mentioned the yellow cake thing. The Feds are ticked off about Wikileaks, but when Cheney leaked the Plame stuff in that instance, there were no Dem investigations.

Here’s an example of our screwed up priorities. I mentioned the community colleges and the unemployed. Recently the Repubs whittled down the money to the CCs to $2 billion. But let’s look at just one item at the Pentagon:

‘the traditional Republican who now leads the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Howard P. McKeon, fought back against proposed cuts in the Pentagon budget even as fledgling committee members supported by the Tea Party said that the nation’s debts amounted to a national security risk. ‘

“I will not support any measures that stress our forces and jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform,” Mr. McKeon said in an opening statement that followed up on a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urging him not to stop work on the Marines’ $14.4. billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a combined landing craft and tank for amphibious assaults that Mr. Gates canceled this month. ‘

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/us/politics/27pentagon.html?ref=us

I understand we’ve already spent $3 billion on this EFV, and another $12 billion is required to get it finished. This is on a landing craft. The Marines don’t land on beaches anymore!

We all know someone who is out of work, or otherwise hurting financially. IMO we need someone in DC to cut this ridiculous spending and start actually working on jobs.

I will post a reply in the mornin’ /am Mr. Ben…then you all decide ’bout the incestuous relationship between “TrueHypocrite™” (Barbie) and her new lil’ sister, “TrueAnger™” (Skipper)

The Feds are ticked off about Wikileaks, but when Cheney leaked the Plame stuff in that instance, there were no Dem investigations.

Huh?

There were several attempts at investigation. First, the congressional investigation was passed off by Sen. Jay Rockefeller to the FBI (an entity that one might assume should be non-partisan). That went nowhere for years. Later, Rep. Henry Waxman and others in the legislative branch tried to investigate, Congressionally, but as you may recall, the investigations were thwarted at every step by claims of “executive privilege” and “national security.” Thankfully the non-partisan (though ostensibly Republican) prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did a pretty good job in pursuing criminal charges, though I’d wager a few ounces of gold that he came across a ton of juicy information that he felt wouldn’t hold up in court.

I mostly agreed with you further upthread (”Yes, they went along with just about every bit of unconstitutional, immoral BS he pushed.”), but you’re mis-rememberin’ regarding the tenor of the investigations.

‘There were several attempts at investigation’

Oh really? We all know what Cheney leaked. He outed a CIA officer in a vicious personal attack and put this persons contacts at risk of death. This is a clear breach of law. ‘passed off… to the FBI…went nowhere for years…the investigations were thwarted at every step by claims”

Wow, that’s some real investigating. Passed off, thwarted by claims. And along the way Bush also leaked false data to the NY Times that went a long way to dragging us into Iraq. Oh, never mind. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, a trillion $s later, we can be consoled that the Democrats made ‘attempts’ to do what was right, huh? Did they vote for the wars? Did they vote for the patriot act? Are they demanding an end to the wars today? Are they trying to shut down Wikileaks for ‘embarrassing’ the State Dept? (most of it said before they were in office. Who are they protecting? Why the cover up for the Bush torturers?)

True opposition - checks and balances. What ever you think of the Repubs and their opposition to the White House, at least they were performing a function of free govt. And if Obama needed to be investigated, I hope they wouldn’t be ‘thwarted’ by mere words.

Hate to tell you this dude, but this is what your plan was going to look like, whether Obamacare passed or not.

Higher premiums every year, with higher and higher deductibles, and “charges in excess of plan limits” pass thrus……..basically paying more for less.

Nothing different than what’s been happening for the past 20 years. Except the insurance companies are getting greedier, because they think they have a patsy (Obamacare) that everyone will blame it on.

Nothing different than what’s been happening for the past 20 years. Except the insurance companies are getting greedier, because they think they have a patsy (Obamacare) that everyone will blame it on.

Which comes straight out of the insurance companies’ playbook.

Want to know what else is in that playbook? Read Deadly Spin by Wendell Potter. He lays it all out for ya.

Bilski is here.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf

If you look at the Bilski case for agreement among the Justices, you will be disappointed.

“KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except for Parts II–B–2 and II–C–2. ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined the opinion in full, and SCALIA, J., joined except for Parts II–B–2 and II–C–
2. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined as to Part II.”

The entire area of “software patents” and “business method patents” is currently highly litigated and keeps bouncing back and forth between what “actually works” & what China can get from it’s spies the CAFC and the Supreme Court