Obama's next target: home mortgage foreclosure crisis
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
British woman held for smuggling cocaine into Bali
( 2 )
-
Millions in global aid for Iraq remain unspent
( 1 )
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 6 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 10 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 7 )
-
- 秘書及び業務サポート
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥4.0M / Year
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
Order by Time Order by Popularity
39 Comments
Login to comment
0
Wolfpack
It's exciting to see how Obama is putting the spotlight on the next pressing problem on America's national agenda - the mortgage crisis. Right after Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi write up some Socialist legislation in Congress to basically give people free houses, Obama can get back out there on the campaign trail and sell the plan by telling us again about how the 'sky is falling' and 'the end is near'. Since President Obama has never done anything in his political career, it's probably best to leave the actual work of socializing and bankrupting the nation to the experts. Former Republican Senator Stevens (Alaska), would be proud.
0
smithinjapan
Wolfpack: "Right after Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi write up some Socialist legislation in Congress to basically give people free houses, Obama can get back out there on the campaign trail and sell the plan by telling us again about how the 'sky is falling' and 'the end is near'."
Sorry, bud... the only people running around screaming 'the sky is falling' and 'the end is near' are people like you, and in particular since you got completely slammed in the election. You see, your paranoia about Socialism invading your country (hell, you probably think the USSR is knocking on your back door!), and your complete and utter ignorance of what Socialism and Communism really are and how Obama is not turning to either in the least is what makes people like you insecure. Your security then becomes panic and you NEED others to share in your panic to make you feel better, so you come on here and rant, and rave, and get naive people to follow your cue.
Fortunately, the majority of Americans, and the rest of the people in the world, can see that Obama actually working on the issues is a GOOD thing instead of a president who always 'retires' to his ranch instead of getting the jobs done. Not to worry, though, Wolfie, Obama is going to help you help yourself, despite the fact that you are just expecting handouts and claiming the worst.
"It's exciting to see how Obama is putting the spotlight on the next pressing problem on America's national agenda"
Bang on... a president that DOES things... who would have thought?
Anyway, bud... go look up Communism in the dictionary, and Socialism, and see what it's all about. If you need to, compare your government with those of China, North Korea, and hell even Venezuela and you'll see not only how different they are, but how Obama is pulling you guys AWAY from such forms of government which bush was pushing you towards -- taking away your freedoms, saying sacrificing your rights was part of the cost of freedom, spying on you, putting people who don't agree with his politics on 'no-fly' lists, etc.
Again, good on Obama for working hard to fix things. I know it really makes those non-patriots against Obama suffer and twinge to see progress, but that's not a bad thing in the least.
0
Badsey
Anytime the Gov sticks it's nose into a Capitalist machine it generally screws up the process. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are fine examples of this.
Giving direction is what a Gov. can do best. (e.g. We want the America to explore solar and wind energy --We will be giving out 1B grants for this research)
0
GJDailleult
Why are you guys talking about bankrupting the nation and screwing up the process in the present tense, like they are things that are going to happen? You are a little behind the curve, bankrupted and screwed up is how things already are, so no need to worry about it now. Worry about what to do next.
0
VOR
The fleecing of America continues.
Both parties are equally to blame but Obama and his band of thieves are off to a fast start.
If you are not a US taxpayer, you wouldn't understand.
0
smithinjapan
"Giving direction is what a Gov. can do best. (e.g. We want the America to explore solar and wind energy --We will be giving out 1B grants for this research)"
Well said, Badsey.
VOR: "If you are not a US taxpayer"
Neither are you, if you've lived in Japan (and this is a Japan site) long enough and earn under a certain amount, if I'm not mistaken.
Anyway, I really don't wish to have to show you up again like yesterday, VOR, and prove you wrong over and over. It gets a wee bit tiring since you simply refuse to accept the facts. I WILL point out again though that this is a Japan news site, and if you believe only Americans can have points of view on issues about the US, I suggest you go find another site to post as you are basically forfeiting your right to legitimately post on this site, and in particular on any topic not about the US. The whole 'You are not an American so you cannot understand' argument is about the lamest attempt to deflect from honest debate that you can post. It's become quite clear, and in particular over the past few days, VOR, that 'foreigners' (ie. how you view non-Americans on this Japan site) have more valuable input into issues regarding the US than you could possibly ever have, and the same with a number of other posters on here, though not all, that share your view and were posting yesterday.
Hell, VOR, you said yesterday that the Iraq war was not started by bush! and then you claim you have more relevance to topics regarding the US?
Again, though, I don't feel like proving you wrong again all day, so let's debate using the thread at hand and please try to bring up some valid points, not merely childish deflection.
Moderator: If you continue to post remarks like the above, which are both impolite to other users as well as offensive, you will be suspended from the discussion board. You seem totally intolerant of other people's views and certainly incapable of refuting them without resorting to petty remarks.
0
smithinjapan
"Both parties are equally to blame but Obama and his band of thieves are off to a fast start."
If both parties are already equally to blame, how could one be off to a 'fast START'?
Glad at least THIS comment is slightly more objective. I disagree, though. What Obama is doing is actually deciding and acting on things for the betterment of the country, whereas the Republicans simply want to filibuster and/or block them from occurring.
0
VOR
smith, once again you are sadly mistaken, I reside in the United States.
Moderator: Both of you, pay attention. You are to focus your comments on the story, not at or about each other.
0
skipthesong
Well, if he is going to set out and provide assistance to those who should not have bought a house then why stop there? How about helping those who lost money on bad investments, especially if they relate to real estate. How about helping those who are in the alternative business now instead of only helping a few and even not yet started companies?
0
Badsey
If you are trying to ask for a handout -you can forget it. To get an Official Presidential Obama Handout (OPOH) you must be a voting Democrat and then file in triplicate (no photocopies allowed!) to your local Obama Handout Office (OHO). Then you are placed on the Obama Handout Waiting List (OHWL) where you quickly learn you are really SOL.
0
Badsey
I have heard that some people have finally got their "free" George Foreman Grill. I missed out on that Obama handout, but am hoping for Obama stimulus #1 to kick in soon.
0
skipthesong
Then you are placed on the Obama Handout Waiting List (OHWL) where you quickly learn you are really SOL." Even for non-whites? I should get a few pushes up front.
OPOH, OHO, OHWL - did you think those up?
smitty: "What Obama is doing is actually deciding and acting on things for the betterment of the country" I for one, have no doubt that is what is desired, but I don't think you read that package to its entire end.
"whereas the Republicans simply want to filibuster and/or block them from occurring." Well, of course they would. And if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be the the same only flipped.
0
Loki520
What "home mortgage foreclosure crisis"? It's not a crisis. It's actually REALLY simple.
If you can afford the payments YOU AGREED TO... you pay.
If you can't... you lose your home. The lender takes the home and sells it for what you own on it. Or, the lender can give the home to Obama and he can give each of the homeless their own home.
0
bebert
I agree, all of these people who bought homes they couldn't afford should get thrown out onto the street. If you signed up for a mortgage that increases from 4 to 12% after three years, you have to be a moron. I've watched interviews with some of these people and they are so brain-dead that I really have to question if they have any sort of income, short of selling drugs. Once again, the successful people, the hard working people, those who save rather than spend, the ants of our society, are being bled dry to bail out the lazy grasshoppers who don't save, don't work, don't think - but just consume. It is no wonder that the producers don't just pull a "John Galt" and say "The hell with it!" and refuse to pull the cart any longer.
0
Madverts
It isn't fair that the banks, who are as responsible, if not more responsible than the morons now losing their homes that took on credit they couldn't pay for.
0
smithinjapan
bebert: "I agree, all of these people who bought homes they couldn't afford should get thrown out onto the street."
What I agree with is the sentiment. Unfortunately the reality is something else. What I think is a slightly more practical approach is putting the companies who duped them into accepting the loans, maxing out cards, etc. be put behind bars, since clearly it was their intention to rack up debt to the point that no one can realistically expect to pay it back without severe hardships. The people are morons, to be sure, and may not deserve any part of any handouts, but in my mind that makes people who took advantage of said morons knowingly are the worse for it.
I don't think they should be bailed out, but sadly I think supporting a bunch of homeless people booted out on the street would be far more expensive in the long run. And yes, I fully acknowledge that it's the middle class that work hard (I'm not suggesting ALL the people who took said loans are NOT hard working and are morons... they could well have just fallen on hard times) to make ends meet will be bled, as you say.
"It is no wonder that the producers don't just pull a "John Galt" and say "The hell with it!" and refuse to pull the cart any longer."
Agreed. In fact, what we are potentially seeing is a gradual regression to an end not far off from Rand's famous novel. It's already happening to an extent, but I honestly think for the time being Obama has put on the breaks. Whether they stay on or the wheels simply break and things go downhill even faster... we have yet to see.
0
SuperLib
Good luck, Obama. We're all gonna need it.
0
likeitis
If you are burying such clauses in ream after ream of contract paper mostly stuffed with gobblty gook and legaleeze, you should be in prison.
I know a lot of these people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, but that does not give lenders the right to fleece them or set them up for a fall. They successfully do that enough times and you know what you get? A mortage crisis, thats what you get. Its not even beneficial for the lender anymore. It certainly is not any good for the country.
And I am telling you, these lenders are getting better and better at hiding the facts and wearing you down until you just give up and do whatever. They are about as fun to deal with and about as straightforward as those damned machine operators in the complaint department; you just hang up after hearing "Home, home on the Range" as many times as you can stand.
0
likeitis
I don't think either really needs to happen. I think the best thing to do is give them breathing space so they can pay their debts eventually. But, not what they owe according to the shady contracts, but a fair renegotiation of the debt. If some of those greedy lenders see the bottom fall out, tough. Better those few leeches on the street than the many who do ACTUAL WORK.
0
Badsey
There is little point in paying off a 15-20+% 30yr note when the note itself is worth 30% less than the original. This is mostly a form of loan-sharking that congress (especially Biden) passed. Same could be said for credit debts. At some point bankruptcy is the better choice --> with too many of these type of bankruptcies the bank fails = that's what happened. Pure greed caused many of these "bank" failures. Then why are we bailing out the banks?
0
Betzee
Because the capitalist system can't function without them. But they needed to be regulated.
Too many Americans thought they would wake up richer every morning if they owned a home since the value would continue to appreciate. Now many have found out you can wake up poorer, too, if values plunge. When I was looking for a house I saw a number of "short sells," where the borrower owes much more than the current market value of the home. Both the owner and the lender are simply trying to get recoup what they can in such cases.
High-growth areas have been disproportionately affected by the sub-prime mortgage racket. California, Arizona and Florida all have high foreclosure rates. Whole communities are in foreclosure and local governments don't want ghost towns. We had a family of bob cats move into an abandoned home; they were drinking out the pool. So people may get a reprieve to serve a greater good.
Easy access to credit made it possible to enjoy the good life before you'd earned it. When I was growing up, it was considered an embarrassment to be in debt. Now it's become a way of life for many Americans.
Credit card companies, of course, hawk their wares to everyone with a pulse. So, access to credit has to be regulated as well, given the ability of the financial system to bring everybody down.
0
Betzee
While it is unfair to those who lived within their means to allow those who mortgaged to the hilt to remain in homes that would otherwise be in foreclosure, the market value of these properties has plunged, so on paper they are not reaping an unearned windfall. Moreover, abandoned houses further depress the value of homes owned by those not in arrears on their mortgage payments.
0
Sarge
"home mortgage foreclosure crisis"
There wouldn't have been any crisis if people who had no business buying homes they couldn't afford hadn't taken out mortgages on them.
0
Betzee
Are you letting the sellers/lenders off the hook? Part of what drove the "booming economy" of the GWB years was a flourishing real estate market which created a bubble that has now burst. You can't have it both ways.
It was all part of freeing financial markets which, just as occurred in the 1930s, now necessitates a fundamental and costly type of public intervention to correct. If the banks don't have money to lend, it stifles growth in the private sector.
0
Betzee
The chickens have really come home to roost:
Last week the Federal Reserve released the results of the latest Survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial report on the assets and liabilities of American households. The bottom line is that there has been basically no wealth creation at all since the turn of the millennium: the net worth of the average American household, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was in 2001.
Yet until very recently Americans believed they were getting richer, because they received statements saying that their houses and stock portfolios were appreciating in value faster than their debts were increasing. And if the belief of many Americans that they could count on capital gains forever sounds naïve, it’s worth remembering just how many influential voices — notably in right-leaning publications like The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and National Review — promoted that belief, and ridiculed those who worried about low savings and high levels of debt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16krugman.html
0
SuperLib
It's not a question of "us vs. them." The guy you want to throw out on the streets is the same guy your company wants as a customer. In the end it's going to come back and affect you.
0
Betzee
Once I started looking at property I realized how much flipping of homes had gone on after the capital gains tax on home sales was lifted.
One property had been purchased in May, undergone an extensive remodel, and was back on the market for one hundred grand more by September. In mid-decade you get make fast money that way; now it's no longer the case.
People got caught in this buy-fix up-resell cycle which drove prices up before they came crashing down. A lot of wealth on paper was destroyed.
0
likeitis
Could you be more specific, or would that blow over your house of cards?
0
SuperLib
As opposed to the buy-fix up-resell cycle that drives prices down? The creation of wealth through real estate isn't evil in nature. It's generally a smart investment over time. You're attacking the fundamentals of real estate investment because of the loose cash given out to play the game.
Hate the playa, Betzee, not the game.
0
Loki520
Madverts
You DO realize, don't you, that mortgage lenders were required, BY LAW, to have a certain percentage of loans under the CRA, right? Furthermore, fannie and freddie sole existance was to provide home loans to those OTHERWISE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THEM thru the normal mortgage procedures. Normal = credit worthy with suitable income, etc..
I worked at a real estate brokerage that had it's own affiliated lenders. BUT, our lenders, being part of the Cendant group we were, were NOT required to participate in the CRA without limits. They were able to set their own requirements. Therefore, we did absolutly ZERO NINJA loans, unlike countrywide, etc.. For those unaware, a NINJA loan is a No Income No Jobs or Assets. In other words... nothing needed to qualify for a loan. Welfare payments counted as income for loan purposes, as did the face amounts for food stamps, and any state or federal provided benefits. And this was in HAWAII, where a dual "income" family had annual income of 45k and qualified under FM for a 350k home loan.
There is a REASON that the banks did these loans, and that reason is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Sure, they made money... lots of it. And given the chance to NOT take that risk and therefore not make that money, most of them would NOT have done those loans without the government guarantee.
Yea, yea... the evil corporations made money off the little guy. SO WHAT? The little guy agreed, via legally binding contracts, to pay a 800 mortgage that would ARM to 1750 in 2 or 3 years. And he did it with a 1200 monthly income and food stamps.
If ANYBODY is at fault... it's the school systems that failed to teach these people basic math.
0
Betzee
Huh??? I don't hate anybody (and how did ya come up with that when you claimed not to read my posts?).
There's lots of anger on this thread, but it ain't emanating from my posts. "The little guy ruined it for everyone." Ah, he had a lot of help....
Many people are looking for scapegoats to avoid indicting the unregulated market for lending. There's a government subsidy operating as an incentive for home ownership as well; you can deduct the interest on your mortgage payments from your taxes.
Bubbles are not good because they take down everybody except those, like moi, who are smart enough to wait and pick up property for a fraction of what it was selling for several years ago.
0
TexasAggie
Considering how the popping of the "housing bubble" is widely believed to have been the start of the economic problems, it just might have made a little sense to tackle that problem first.
But, of course, that wouldn't have cost so much, expanded our government through maximus porkulus so much, nor allowed every liberal's dream of a social engineering program to come to fruition, now would it?
0
VOR
Pure unadulterated greed at all levels created this problem.
I'll start at the top and work my way down.
Democrat and Republican politicians who put their parties interest ahead of the good of the nation.
Bankers motivated by obscene profit while putting the entire risk on the taxpayer.
The mainstream media for covering for the Democrats.
People who borrow way more than they could afford and then blame others when they can't make their payments.
The American people for not holding their elected officials, government, private industry and their neighbors responsible.
0
Betzee
Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble there, bud, but you have to start with the banks because they are holding the bad mortgages which prevent them from lending to solvent businesses. Having bailed them out last year, though they may need more infusions of cash, homeowners facing foreclosure (and affected communities) are saying, "What about us?"
Many have pointed the finger at poor people, presumably aided by legislation such as GWB's "American Dream Homeowners Act." There were some who didn't understand the contract they were signing. But they are peripheral to the problem. Most people I have encountered, and read about, who are facing foreclosure are not first time home buyers. They had made money off of earlier homes and perhaps that blinded them to the risk of ending up owing much more than the current market value of the property.
Having researched the sales history of properties I was interested in, it's clear if you bought in 2003 and sold in 2005 you were in a position to walk away with a tidy, untaxable capital gain. There was a nice appreciation, double in some cases. This was also the period during which sub-prime mortgages were widely available so it's safe to assume they were related. Lifting of capital gains on home sales also brought "flippers" into the market. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that, it helped create the bubble.
Now banks are extremely cautious about lending. I have a colleague who thought his wife just being hired as a teacher would enable them to qualify for a mortgage. Apparently the mortgage broker read that Golden State teachers may be receiving IOUs since the state is insolvent. Anyway, their application was shot down.
0
Betzee
The other thing is consider is that a home is the primary asset of most Americans. So when its value drops it has a much greater impact than, say, one stock in a diversified portfolio.
0
SuperLib
Still feeling that sting, eh? ;)
What anger? I was just correcting some of your information. I thought my "playa" comment was actually pretty funny.
You didn't make any money off of the bubble at all? And you take this as a sign of intelligence?
0
likeitis
Loki520, thank you so much for putting DETAILS in your post so that I could do some fact checking. I have read similar allegations before, but since they excluded DETAILS, all I was left with were question marks.
Yes, some people are blaming the Community Reinvestment Act from 1977 and its many legislative changes since then as being to blame for the Mortgage Crisis. You allege that the act required banks to have a certain percent of loans under CRA. Well, I would say that knowing that percentage is pretty important to making the argument.
But even then, I can't see any real proof that banks were forced to make bad loans. They were just forced to make some loans that did not favor rich people. That means, in order to make profitable loans, they actually to assess people rather than numbers on paper. I know that bankers do not like to actually have to talk to people, but hey, life is hard man. If they were taking just anybody because they could not be bothered to assess the person they were loaning to, I would say its their fault.
Were these loans required under CRA?
0
Loki520
There were not required under the original CRA. These types of loans started appearing after Clinton directed the expansion of the CRA due to low percentage usage. The program was not providing enough community investment (i.e., low income families purchasing homes), so they expanded the rules to basically guarantee more loans IF a certain percentage of ALL loans were loans to low income families.
Back to top