We need a little more Caveat Venditor in the system.

It is up to the lender to act properly. The reason they did not is because they were allowed to sell the mortgages to other companies. The actual lender just made a bit of money in between. When my parents bought their house, they meet with the branch bank manager and they went through the prudent steps because the bank OWNED the debt for the duration of its term. The branch managers credibility was on the line and maybe even his job. Too many bad loans and he is fired. Not any more. The system is broken and the folks who were cheated and mislead should now be helped. But of course, ideology is like blindness.

Jay Tea, please don’t pretend to be Mr. Super Responsible Self-Reliant. We know you’re not.

Do you want us to rehash it all for you?

The cases I’ve heard about involved verbal assurances that the printed agreement didn’t really mean what it said, it’s just standard crap that doesn’t mean anything, so go ahead and sign it anyway. And people went ahead and signed it anyway.

If I was about to agree to pay several hundred thousand dollars over decades, I’d spend a couple of hundred dollars in addition to have an expert (like a lawyer) who’s NOT working for the other side of the deal look it over and tell me exactly what it says — because I know that a verbal promise ain’t worth the paper it ain’t printed on, and if there’s a dispute later, my memory of what the guy said don’t mean squat against the paper they have with my signature on it.

I read EVERYTHING I sign. (Comes from seeing the movie “Heathers” at an impressionable age. If you don’t get that reference, you are too uncool to talk to me and need to see that movie.) I make damned sure I understand it first. (This does not make me popular with my employer, who has killed many, many trees on signoffs and forms and the like.)

Am I that unusual?

J.

Banking regulations could have protected pêople from making their mistake. During the hey day, they were selling mortgages like they were widgets. Greed has to be regulated, and yes even the less smart people need to be protected. Property appraiser were encourage to lie about property values, etc.

In Canada, banking REGULATIONS prevented this deceit from happening. Not many folks underwater here because of REGULATIONS. When Canadian banks wanted to deregulate during the crazy wall street days, the GOVERNMENT said no. The banks argued that their ability to make profit in a global economy was being hampered by to much red tape, blah blah. The GOVERNMENT said to bad and NO.

Ironically, by protecting the people the GOVERNMENT also helped the banks because Canadian banks are some of the strongest banks in the current world. You have to agree, that is quite an accomplishment in these troubled days.

The GOVERNMENT has to protect people, and not just with armies

Did you even read the article I linked?

No shit.

“But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize bad ones.”

True, that doesn’t mean you can’t recognize a bad solution. Your stupidity means you can’t tell the difference between a good solution and a bad solution. Okay, that’s not true, it’s you blind allegiance to a failed political philosophy that does that.

In fact, there might not be a good solution out there. We might be left with looking for the best of a series of bad solutions. But what we do know is doing nothing will not be the best solution. Once we patch up this mess, we then have to figure a way to stop this from happening again. And that means regulations.

That’s just plain common sense. And it’s why loan packages have page after page after page after page of places for the borrower to sign and initial attesting that they have read and understand each and every word. It’s all documented seven ways to Sunday.

Bad things happen to good people. Bad things also happen to bad people. And bad things happen to dumb people.

What would you say is the fairest solution to each of those types?

J.

Really? Because I thought the rub was that there was no one was in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own.

That, at least, was your original talking point.

Now you acknowledge that there these people do actually exist, your talking point has shifted: There’s no easy way to help these people.

Well, Jay Tea, it would be fuck lot easy to figure out how to help these people if more of your conservative brethren could actually bring themselves to admit they exist in the first place.

“You should’ve known that the drug that the doctor told you to take would give you cancer. What are you, stupid?”

“You should’ve known that the spinach would give you cholera. Dumbass.”

Seriously, Jay Tea, you should read that article, it explains the issue better than I ever could. The video at the top also explains why the foreclosures are hurting the economy.

That’s the rub. That’s the sticking point. That’s the problem. Howling about banks and “predatory lending” to people who trusted loan officers to look out for the borrower’s best interests, didn’t get independent advice, didn’t understand documents that they repeatedly signed and indicated that they did, and the like doesn’t do squat for Mike’s step-brother and his family.

But it makes you feel better, I’m sure, especially when you think you can “stick it” to me in the process, and I guess that’s all that really matters here.

J.

“Wingnuts” are arguing that mortgage defaulters deserve it, and that “moonbats” simply want to reward the weak and foolish and grow ‘Islamic socialism’. Thoughtful conservatives will try to view the entire picture with all of its ramifications, as best they can (including acknowledgement of the catastrophic failure of using an unregulated credit market as ‘the next big economic thing’) to debate with like-minded liberals (who will acknowledge the need for vigilance against growing corrupt bureaucracies) for pragmatic solutions. The problem with hard and fast ideologies is that they are not adaptive, contextual, or pragmatic.

Democratic republicanism, checks and balances, and rule of law are all we’ve got. When power concentrates in any form (government, corporate, religious, cultural…) the risk of corruption increases exponentially because of the way the power game is played and who that game rewards – exactly the kind of people you do not want in power.

There is no such thing as “temporary” with a government program.

Most of FDR’s programs are gone. Nobody talks about defending against the USSR any more. Eisenhower’s highways and NASA are in decline. Reagan, Clinton and the Bush’s made large cuts in programs. The people still do have the power to vote government programs away, as they’ve done in the past.

My own theory about why red county Christians are being so anti-Christian about all this is that they simply do not have to live it. ‘Blue’ is usually urban. Most people cannot fully understand what they themselves have not directly experienced. Then, what a lack of understanding starts, echo chamber tribalism finishes. That’s how massive disastrous worldwide unregulated corporate greed engines / ponzi schemes come to be “all ACORN’s fault”.

Jay Tea, the question you raised yourself, wasn’t, how do we help people in need. The question you raised was:

Could someone point out to me a few examples of “who are in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own?”

Now someone presented you with an example. It is an example of someone in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own.

So, Jay Tea, rather than ramble on how about how ACORN is eeevul, just tell us whether or not you believe there are people out there in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own. Yes or no.

Short version:

Bought the house for 87K in 2001.
Between 2001 and 2006, refinanced for 270K.

Foreclosed in spring 2006.
Filed for bankruptcy July 2006.
Agreed to pay back arrears in September 2006.
Was 7K behind in December 2007.
Second foreclosure February 2008.
Sold to new owner June 2008 for 192K.
ACORN helps her “retake” her house (which was being fixed up by new owner) February 2009.

The new owner says he plans on suing ACORN — and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.

The difference between religious and governmental compunctions are profound. If God tells me to do something, the risk of disobedience is I go to Hell when I die. And if I don’t like it, I can leave the church.

If the government tells me to do something, the risk of disobedience is jail. I don’t have the option of saying “I don’t believe in you any more.”

The defining nature of charity is the voluntary nature. If you have no choice about giving, then it ain’t charity.

I just received my seven gallon pin from the Red Cross a few weeks ago. That means I have donated blood 56 times. (Technically, a few short of that, but a few were plasma pheresis donations that count double.) Every single one of them was voluntary. If they attempted to coerce those donations, they’d be guilty of major felonies.

Why should these people get bailouts? Because they NEED them.

Why should others give them money? Because they are ABLE to.

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”

Michael, I will accept your description of your relatives’ situation at face value. (There are several here I wouldn’t do that for.) But I will ask a few questions:

What, precisely, are they looking for in terms of assistance?

How, precisely, will that assistance fix the underlying problams, and not just postpone the crisis?

Let’s say Bob and Sue (with two kids) have lost their jobs and haven’t found new work. They’re six months behind on their mortgage, because they’ve been using what money they do have for electricity, food, and the like. Entirely understandable. What should be done?

Put a freeze on foreclosures? That just means the back due amount keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Renegotiate the mortgage and tack the arrears on to the back end? They still have no income. Six months later, we’re right back to where we are.

Redefine the mortgage in terms of current house value? Sure, let’s screw over the bank that made the loan in the first place. Of course, “the bank” will simply pass the costs on to its owners and other customers, but they can afford it.

I don’t have a good solution. But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize bad ones.

And any of them that involve ACORN are almost guaranteed to be bad ones.

J.

What I’m hearing from Obama is that only those who are in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own will be helped out…

And what some of the “wingnuts” here are arguing is how do you determine who is in trouble through no fault of their own, and who brought it upon themselves? And once you determine the how, who will do the determining? Will it be the bankruptcy courts? Some office from the FHA? Some Housing Czar? And how will they be held accountable?

…and that all this is only a temporary emergency measure meant to prevent long term economic hardship for the rest of us.

There is no such thing as “temporary” with a government program. Once this beast is in place, it’s not going away. Will this “temporary emergency power” actually prevent long term economic hardship, or merely pass it down the line another decade? What will the law of unintended consequences have to say about it all? What is going to happen when the reaper comes to collect on all of the retirement programs which are now underfunded because of the recession? What’s going to happen when the people who took out student loans in the previous years begin to default because they can no longer afford to go to school since they have to work to feed their families or keep a roof over their heads?

Will students and retirees get bailed out next? If so, how will we pay for it? If not, why not? President Obama is already bailing out GM (again) and homebuyers, why are retirees not worth it?

I would have loved it if the Republicans had shown a lick of fiscal responsibility from 2001-2008, but they didn’t. However it’s better that they come to it now since the Democrats seem hellbent on making the Republican spending spree seem like a trip to QT.

michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/document-drop-the-truth-about-acorns-foreclosure-poster-child/

How much home intrudion and garbage rummaging did she do this time?

It just strikes me as funny how the ultra-cons championed the bank and Wall Street bailouts, and then are horrified at the idea of helping out the people these industries hurt. If this isn’t socialized usury, then what is it?

What were they thinking? Assuming that there would be jobs they could work so they wouldn’t have to be homeless? Fools!

ACORN thought they found someone to champion and broke into and “liberated” their home from the new owner, and it turned out that she’d renegotiated it several times, and not once kept the new agreements:

michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/document-drop-the-truth-about-acorns-foreclosure-poster-child/

So, those people who held out for mortgages they afforded, or deferred getting mortgages because they were uncertain of their ability to keep them up, get to pay their own housing bills PLUS those who didn’t show the same common sense?

Oliver’s right. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” If you can afford to pay your own bills and someone else’s, then you ought to.

J.

Maybe Proverbs 28 has some wisdom, if any of these conservative fundies care to read it.

Whatever you do, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE SOCIALIST BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

Yeah. Keep repeating that stupid, non-sensical, meaningless shit and we’ll steamroll you worse next election. Oh, and keep elevating dipshits like Joe the Plumber and Oxybaugh as your spokesmen . . . please.