US Senate approves housing bill

[Cuda68]

If this money goes to helping home owners refinance I am all for it. But part way down the article it also says that it may also be used to bail out the struggling mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which own or guarantee around half the nation's mortgage debt.

I am so dead against bailing out the Corporates who we all know won't ease up on refinancing current mortgages that either reset to higher rate or are about to. Most of these people can't handle the reset that amounts to doubling there monthly payment. If they can't handle the doubling of there payment, then bailing out the Corporations will only delay whats happing, not slow it down or stop it.
And then there's the wonderful side effect of tax's going up to cover the cost of all this, more foreclosures and job layoffs.

This just sickens me.







http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7527108.stm

[woodchip]

Wait! Aren't both banks in fact governmental agencies?

[Spidey]

Wait! Aren't both banks in fact governmental agencies?

No, both are private.

[TechPro]

Wait! Aren't both banks in fact governmental agencies?

No, both are private.

But are insured(guaranteed) by the Government and function with the help of a lot of Government support ... so obviously, with them "in trouble" it's plain someone (or multiple someones) are lining their pockets instead of serving the public as normally mandated.

[Ford Prefect]

What are you guys talking about? This is a Republican administration and there is no possible way that they would bail out corporations with the tax dollars of the little people. That's just not on their agenda.

Oh I just looked it up and I guess the Democrats control the House of Reps. No wonder they are bailing out those huge corporations at the expense of the average tax payer. Evil, evil, evil.

[Cuda68]

Now its just getting stupid. So many people out there want to make things right with the banks but the banks only see profit in the higher rates. So what are the people doing?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7529277.stm


I really hope corporate America wakes up and starts talking to people instead of running roughshod over everyone to fuel there short lived greed. The results are really scary.

[Ford Prefect]

As a successful professional, Karen could comfortably have managed the higher mortgage payments her bank demanded.
Instead, she decided to stop her mortgage payments altogether and let her bank repossess her apartment.
......

Though banks can repossess and sell the homes of borrowers who stop paying their mortgages, under a legal quirk originating in the Great Depression of the 1930s, banks cannot easily pursue borrowers for any balance outstanding on the main mortgage on their homes.

Consequently, by walking away from her apartment, Ms Trainer has also walked away from the $200,000 loss on her property.

Her bank gets stuck with that.

Looks like the common folk are just as unprincipled and greedy as the banks.

[Cuda68]

There's little choice. The Mortgage company's wont talk or renegotiate unless you have a credit beacon score of over 700. As soon as these mortgage's reset to the higher rate your credit takes a hit, and heaven forbid your late on a payment. Walking away is the only fiscal choice. If they weren't so nasty to deal with most of these problem's would not have happened in the first place and the housing market would still be stable.

[Ford Prefect]

Read your own article C. That woman could make the payments easy but she chose to walk away to avoid the loss. Pure greed. Instead of her the bank takes the loss so her life style is unaffected. She could have:
A)Held on to the investment and made her payments on the loan she was given in good faith and wait for house prices to come back up.
B)Sold the property and taken the loss. There is no guarantee on any investment, you take the risk and you should take the loss as well as the gain if any.
C)Walk away from her obligations and her promises and her duty and let some one else take the loss. Poor dear, her credit rating will take a hit for about 5 years and it will be tough to get that loan on a new car. She dumped the loss on her lender (the bank) and now the bank wants to dump the loss on their lender (the government). Are you surprised?

[Cuda68]

I do understand your point. She is choosing to walk away without even trying, even though she can afford the payment, I understand that.
But how did she get there. The mortgage crises itself brought down values.
I tend to be a die hard critic of corporate America greed.

[snoopy]

I'm looking into first-time buying in the near future.

I'm going to be borrowing conservatively.

I don't have any sympathy for the corporations or the individuals. When I sign on my huge loan, I'm going to make sure I fully understand what I'm signing, and what it means for the life of the loan. If you don't understand number well enough to know that you won't be able to afford your payments in five or ten years, then you shouldn't be borrowing money.

I agree with Cuda, I think it was all fueled by greed, and I don't see why I should feel bad for people or corporations that screwed themselves over in the long run for a short stint of comfort & stuff.

I think the housing market is just bringing itself back into alignment.... it was way over-inflated for a while, and now it's settling back to more like what it should be. It hurts for the people that bought in the peak of the boom.... but the majority of the people that are crying were in it for the big money. I'll give my sympathy to people who had to buy during the peak, and the people who can't make their payments because they got laid off. I don't want to hear it from the people that over committed by choice.

[flip]

IMO, it's about time a $60,000 dollar house costs $60,000 dollars. Not $150,000 =/. Here's the real problem though. It's not that the house is worth less than it was 10 years ago, the problem is that the dollar is.

Also, If I had to weigh out who was going to benefit the most form someone buying or selling a house, it would definitely be the banks. The amount of money they pilfer from you over a 30 year period should be criminal.

[woodchip]

Housing costs are strongly affect by location. If you chose to buy in the high rent areas, then expect higher prices. Go to a lot of the flyover states and you will find housing costs reasonable.

[Ford Prefect]

There is a huge difference in my mind between those caught in a debt/income crunch that have to declare personal bankruptcy because they just can't pay their bills and those who would walk away from a mortgage loan because it saves them money. If you walk from your mortgage it should cause you to enter bankruptcy and pay what you can on what you owe. I was raised to pay my debts and honour my promises, simple as that not conditional on how much money I hoped to make.

IMO, it's about time a $60,000 dollar house costs $60,000 dollars. Not $150,000

$60,000 wouldn't buy you a garage in my city much less the house connected to it. Neither would $150,000. Median house price in Richmond B.C. is over $700,000 and this is a nothing special suburb on a flood plain.
Yeah I would say it is time for a correction downward; just like the early 1980s and mid 1970s
People that made purchases in this market without considering the obvious overvalue were foolishly optimistic. House prices simply do not go up for ever. The Economist has been calling the U.S. housing market a bubble for at least 2 years now but no one seems to hear until the \"pop\" occurs. And if you think things are bad now wait until interest rates climb. My first mortgage was at 11.5% and that was half what the rate had been 2 years previous. There are times where renting is a better option.
I think the U.S. system of allowing loan interest to be deducted from income for tax purposes just makes this problem worse but that's not going to change now.