Posted on 10/12/2008 9:08:51 AM PDT by Inkie
For Real?! That should be campaign issue Number One!
It’s on FR in a post from this morning, I may have saveed the link.
Here is the link, I was wrong on the amount, it is only 920 million dollars.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2103676/posts
from the article:
” With one socialist “bailout” bill apparently on the way to passage by Congress, two more are pending?both of them sponsored by Senator Barack Obama. One is the Jubilee Act, which would cancel as much as $75 billion worth of Third World debt, and the other is the Global Poverty Act, which would cost an estimated $845 billion. Total potential cost: $920 billion.”
Oh, I certainly agree that the homes should be foreclosed upon. That still won't fix the fact that the "lender" defrauded hundreds of thousands of dollars from the person to whom he sold the "mortgage".
Money has been lost. Far beyond the losses that have already been realized. It is useless to consider such losses to be a "problem"; they have already occurred, and are consequently unavoidable. The losses will cause other problems which will need to be mitigated; if they could be handled sensibly I think they could in most cases be resolved without too much additional damage. Unfortunately, I expect the government to act in such a fashion as to make things ten times worse.
Whoever wound up buying the mortgage from the "lender" gets the property. The collateral for the loan should just migrate up the chain.
It does, but that doesn't fix the problem that the person who got stuck with the loan when the music stopped had been told it was a good loan on a home worth $400,000, when the person who wrote the loan knew that it was a loan that would never be repaid, on a house that was only worth $100,000 when sold and may very well be worthless (because of damage by the occupant) by the time it's repossessed.
Perhaps there should be a provision by which the person who was stuck with the loan could demand the flesh of the fraudulent "lender".
I not following you, it is the borrower who goes to the lender with the appraisal he had shopped for. The lender is merely a fool who should have paid for an independent appraisal. The lender who sells a mortgage he did not verify but claims to have, has some explaining to do to his customers. But I am not convinced that folks who bought houses were defrauded by those who lent them money.
How does a Bureaucrat solve what they consider a problem?
First, throw lots and lots of money at the problem without understanding the problem, then regulate it to the Nth degree. If that doesn’t work, blame somebody or something first, then throw a lot more money at the problem.
When that fails, shift all blaim to the opposing political party, even if it was your own party that were completely responsible for it in the first place.
Finally, raise taxes accross the board to get more money to throw at the problem. Repeat the above steps compulsively without understanding the cause, as often as necessary.
Finally, when all else fails, deny that there ever was or is a problem in the firt place and ignore it entirely.
Problem solved!
Allow me to suggest the following scenario: Boris Badinov decides mortgage fraud is better plan than trying to kill moose and squirrel. So he offers the following deal to a homeowner and a scoundrel:
If Boris can convince the buyer of the mortgage to pay anything over $224,000 for it, he'll make money on the deal. Only after the payments go up and Boris stops making them will the buyer realize he's been had.
In that scenario, exactly how much of a fool is Boris being?
In your scenario, the homeowner, the guy taking out the mortgage, is in on the scam, with the crooked mortgage writer. The guy taking out the loan is not any ones victim, merely a partner in crime. Any how what are we talking about again? I think it is the notion that the guy who takes out a loan is a victim of who loans the money. Still not seeing it.
He's not the victim, but nor is he the major criminal. Sure, a shmuck who's offered $40,000 to sign his name to a phony document should turn it down, but he's not deliberately representing himself to be anything he's not. The lender is the biggest crook, because he knows exactly what's going on, and represents his mortgage as having a value that he knows it most certainly does not.
Got it. The lenders who created bad deals from the get go are deserving of jail time.
Yup. Not only do they defraud the buyers of their junk, but they also seriously disrupt the housing markets causing huge amounts of wealth to be simply lost as a result of inefficient resource allocation.
Even if a "lender" writes an interest-only mortgage for someone who can only manage the initial payments, that person is still apt to balk if the price of the house is too high. Thus, while such loans may allow housing prices to become higher than a sane market would suggest, there's a limit to how high they can push the bubble.
By contrast, 110% LTV negative-amortization NINJA loans offer a "buyer" no incentive to desire a low price. From the "buyer"'s perspective, the higher the price, the more free money he gets. Admittedly it's just a WAG, but I suspect that half of the losses taken on mortgages will be for properties sold in 2007 or 2008. That's when the rules were made totally insane in an effort to keep housing prices going up.
It’s a SCAM.
Hi
I am new on this forum and I would like to share my opinion with others about the $700 billion bailout, which in my opinion will create many troubles for Americans families and separately for each of American citizen.
I believe that on this forum are many good people and good Christians.
If you do mind I will set my quite long address which can be very controversial.
I hope that if I make any mistake admin of the forum will not say me “good bye” and give me another chance.
O.k. – let me know please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.