patrick.net

Me, in 4th grade.

I also made each comment author's name a link to all of that author's posts.

It's only a problem if they buy them at whatever the bank owes on them. What they SHOULD do is offer 20% of what the peak value was, and if they get a home at that price, put the refugees in there and let them apply their rent to buying it. It beats plowing them under.

Fox News is not a serious news source. The story may be true, but they have such low standards that you should not count on it. They specialize in riling people up. Here's a description of a bogus story from them about a rail line from Disneyland to a brothel: http://news.gaurc.us/?p=1462

See, now I could see the use of a rail line from Disneyland to a brothel at least.

OK, but find it in a more reputable source and I'll be more convinced. There's a certain lizard-brain nerve that Fox is optimized for poking. That's all they do.

And here is a more reputable source, the AP: http://www.wkrg.com/weather/article/fema_may_use_foreclosed_homes_as_shelters/76237/ So it does seem to be true that FEMA is considering that.

On the other hand, it will give the banks & note holders sufficient time to get ready to file thousands of foreclosures. I don't know enough about this moratorium, does it mean that all foreclosure activity will cease or just the part where they toss the people out on their asses? This means that my sister, who was due to be kicked out next month sometime, will have a 90 day reprieve during which time she'll save NO money nor will she make any solid plans.

Laws governing how property may be foreclosed have always been a matter of state law. Just like rules regarding how real estate is transferred, how title to property is recorded, etc. As far as the source of the authority, states generally retain the right to enact any law that is not prohibited by either the state or federal constitution. The question you should be asking is what statute or constitutional provision would prevent a state from enacting a foreclosure moratorium. I can't think of any off the top of my head. It would only clearly become an unlawful taking of property if the moratorium were indefinite or permanent.

I was there. A friend of my Wife took us there when we were on vacation in Las Vegas two years ago. It's a man made lake north of the city. Lots of golf courses, a made made river and several waterfalls were at the enterance. (run on pumps) There a small shopping area in the downtown of the village. Lots of hills around so people could have hilltop houses over looking the lake. It was pretty empty in the downtown shopping area when we were there, not sure if it was the time of day or just indication of how bad things were there even then.

This is another useless attempt by govnt to reinflate RE. The banks can hold back foreclosures for a few months while the selling season winding down in the fall. This artificially suppresses the REO inventory in Jan/Feb of next year. Come spring, the RE cheerleaders will trumpet the market has bottomed and hope to fan up a feeding frenzy. It isn't going to work because the internet is enpowering buyers to be better informed and high unemployment, rising interest rate will choke off the supply of trade-up buyers. This is a sham because the "hold" is optional if the bank has a loan mod program in place. Which major bank doesn't have a program? There is no measure of mod success or rate of approval. It squeals but doesn't pass the smell test.

THanks Brazos. well, now I have another question. WHen does the ball pass from state to national?

At one time, the Supreme Court would not have permitted Congress to enact a law such as a foreclosure moratorium, reasoning that it was beyond the power of the federal government. However, beginning with the New Deal and onward, the power of the federal government has expanded, and the Supreme Court has upheld most laws as long as they touch upon some part of interstate commerce. Traditionally, laws governing real property would not have been considered part of interstate commerce, but with the securitization of mortgages, that argument is gone.

Also, where does “equal protection” laws come into play? I was not protected, nor would I be treated in the same manner for not paying my rent, as these non-buyers. And what if a person were removed from their home last Thursday. They may have a reason to bring suit — I mean if the only reason a person is still in their home at this time is because some lazy person at the bank did not get thier file completed on time, but another hard working employee got their work done and that resulted in a non-buyer getting tossed out under the deadline … I think we have an issue.

First, equal protection only precludes laws that have "no rational basis" -- which essentially is no prohibition at all -- unless the law singles people out on the basis of race, religion, or gender, at least at the federal level. In CA, sexual orientation is also included. But equal protection has never required that all laws treat everyone the same. A bank not foreclosing, however, does not implicate equal protection. Generally speaking, our constitutional rights only protect us from state action, not actions by private parties. E.g., Patrick deleting your posts would not be a First Amendment violation, because he is not a state actor. Obviously, constitutional law is a bit more complex than the above summary, but these are the basic concepts.

"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you..."

“I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you…” Ironic that the person who uttered those words (sarcastically) was responsible for the biggest increase in government spending in history, only to be outdone by George W. Bush. More like: “I’m from the government and I’m here to bankrupt the country.”

Dont get me started on that. Even today he embraced the same shithole policy from Bush not allowing CREW access to who lobbies to him directly? What f*** change?

Reagan, Obama, same diff. :)

THanks Brazos. well, now I have another question. WHen does the ball pass from state to national?

At one time, the Supreme Court would not have permitted Congress to enact a law such as a foreclosure moratorium, reasoning that it was beyond the power of the federal government. However, beginning with the New Deal and onward, the power of the federal government has expanded, and the Supreme Court has upheld most laws as long as they touch upon some part of interstate commerce. Traditionally, laws governing real property would not have been considered part of interstate commerce, but with the securitization of mortgages, that argument is gone.

Also, where does “equal protection” laws come into play? I was not protected, nor would I be treated in the same manner for not paying my rent, as these non-buyers. And what if a person were removed from their home last Thursday. They may have a reason to bring suit — I mean if the only reason a person is still in their home at this time is because some lazy person at the bank did not get thier file completed on time, but another hard working employee got their work done and that resulted in a non-buyer getting tossed out under the deadline … I think we have an issue.

First, equal protection only precludes laws that have “no rational basis” — which essentially is no prohibition at all — unless the law singles people out on the basis of race, religion, or gender, at least at the federal level. In CA, sexual orientation is also included. But equal protection has never required that all laws treat everyone the same. A bank not foreclosing, however, does not implicate equal protection. Generally speaking, our constitutional rights only protect us from state action, not actions by private parties. E.g., Patrick deleting your posts would not be a First Amendment violation, because he is not a state actor. Obviously, constitutional law is a bit more complex than the above summary, but these are the basic concepts. You need to go back further than the New Deal. The big shift in attitude about federal power happened during the Civil War. Going from "the united states are" to "the united states is" was the massive shift in authority. Everything since then has been incremental. Of course, most of this was inevitable. What we have today is just frustrating -- we have a big federal government that sucks up a lot of money and is responsible for doing a lot, and we still have big state governments doing the same. The amount of redundancy between the two is just staggering. I'd much prefer either state governments with a very thin layer of federal glue to hold them together, or a strong federal government with states mostly being responsible for issues like land use policies. Either way would work equally well from my perspective.

Palin would make the perfect host for Family Feud.

You've been pre-approved by SIX lenders, and she wants you to do it with another? WTF? IMHO it's a good idea to be pre-approved with your lender of choice, but it's "subject to..." anyway. As in, subject to finding a place & it appraising for an appropriate amount & your continued employment, etc. But she's a salesperson. She doesn't want to show you any more houses until you get pre-approved? Fuck her and the leased SUV she rode in on. Find a realtor who will show you what you want on your terms. She's full of herself acting as if she suspects she's wasting her time on you. If she's that busy that she can't help you find the house you want in the price range you want, fire her. Find someone who doesn't feel they're wasting their time, or go solo. You don't need a realtor anyway, unless the bank owns the place you buy and she insists.

If it's listed by a realtor, you'll have to go thru the realtor to buy (that sucks). If you go directly thru the realtor listing the home you have the opportunity to save 2-3% of the price by negotiating down. The realtor keeps all the commission, doesn't have to split it with anyone. If its FSBO, you can either download forms from the interweb, choose a good title company & ask if they have blanks (mine did), or you can call a real estate lawyer to help you for substantially less than the commission normally charged by a realtor. The contract is then taken to a title company and they'll help guide you through the sale, along with your mortgage company or bank. Realtors fill out a little paperwork and unlock a door. For that they get 6 or 7%. If you do your homework you don't have to pay those rat bastards.

" Tell this realtor to do the job they are being paid to do, which is to submit your offer to the owner, shut up, and get out of the way" Thomhall is spot on. Never tell realtors how much your willing to spend, how much you make, savings, and even your employer name. It will be used against you to get more money out of you. 10 years ago during the start at the tech and RE bubble, your empolyers name, knowledge about any stock options gave the realtors, and then current raising stock prices gave enough ammo to REA to pump prices higher.

I made the mistake of telling my realtor (yes, kiddies, I used one when I bought and I do regret having paid an extra $10k to the seller) the amount for which I was preapproved. She only showed me homes at the top end of my price range - and she didn't care what I was looking for. She actually showed me her daughter's home first - a shithole - and when we had a "come-to-jesus discussion she cried. She told me that she was looking out for me and my best interests. It's interesting to note that she just filed bk, and lost her home. Meanwhile, I live in a home that is at the lower end of my price range and am happier than hell in it. Still have a little phantom equity ($46k +/-) with a payment less than $800/mo, piti. Hell, I could hurt myself patting myself on the back right now.

I agree with others. Fire her, get a new one. The fact that you are pre-approved means you are serious and not wasting anyone's time. I also think that she wants this because she will get the commission from the loan agent she refers, and she would know you highest price range to show you the houses in that range to maximize her commission. Screw her and get a new one who will work for you in your terms. You are at an advantage here, hello buyer here!

The problem is you. You show the weak side to your Realtor, he/she taking advantage from you and push you around. Doesn't matter if you fire him/her and switch to other one, it will happen again if you keep showing your weak side. Learn how to train a Dog, they want a strong leader, then they will follow. Remember this: "Realtor is nothing more than a Dog", they will either bite your attacker or just bite you.

...cause only loosers rent apartments.

Thom, I was only ribbing you - paraphrasing your remark above.

Uh, you're kidding about this right? There is a reason that America (along w/ the West in general) is the CENTER of innovation in the world. Our patent and trademark and system definitely needs work but it is what ALLOWS the small guy to actually be able to beat the big companies. Without that protection innovation would cease. No one will work on anything new and innovative if it can just be stolen.

How many NEW products (ie not modifications of existing technology) has China produced in the last 20 years vs the US?

There's also a whole other discussion about how the West vs East teach their kids which results in different skillsets in this area.

Plus your arguments are contradictory. In one paragraph you say that we need to be more like China and then later you say that govt taking over business doesn't solve the problems. Hello!? In China the govt owns everything.

Riley is correct in that the best ideas are sometimes bought up by big corporations and shelved, usually if the invention in question is a threat to their industry. One example would be the special electric battery designed for the proto-electric car that was bought by one of the big petroleum companies. But I would cite such as examples as more of a shortcoming of free industry - almost a trifle compared to the drudgery of draconian rule, which seems like it would be an impediment to the very fundamentals of invention.

Because of our corruptable form of government,

Holy shit, there's a form of goverment that isn't? Sign me up!

Uh, you’re kidding about this right? There is a reason that America (along w/ the West in general) is the CENTER of innovation in the world. Our patent and trademark and system definitely needs work but it is what ALLOWS the small guy to actually be able to beat the big companies. Without that protection innovation would cease. No one will work on anything new and innovative if it can just be stolen.

Yeah! Who would work on technology if they couldn't prevent people from "stealing" what they're doing? People who want to fix the IP system make me so mad that I almost crash firefox!

rileybryan says

Laws must be put in place to make sure that a patent cannot be slightly modified and resubmitted, creating perpetual patents.

That "slight modification" has beem plagueing us for a long time. I can see a patent on a transister, but not on the Darlington Circuit which is really just two transisters stuck together. That Darlington patent is from the early 50's.

The house Patrick grew up in. A bargain at $150,000, down from $250,000. Might make a decent rental. Rent would be about $1,000 per month.

Thanks! I did not know about 1 and 2. The others are on my to-fix list and will probably get fixed in the next few weeks.

Is anyone here surprised that OTS gets his news from the Enquirer?

Originally lenders resisted fair housing / fair credit legislation because they were too conservative. Once they saw that most of the lower income people were actually making good on their loans they decided to just start letting everyone borrow as much as they want. If someone makes $30,000 a year and wants a $100,000 loan, it's a little higher risk than the $50k / 150k guy, but it's still reasonable. That's what these laws were originally trying to make happen. However, the lenders liked the higher interest rates that they could charge for those at-risk borrowers and decided that now, not only was the $30k guy no bigger a risk than the $50k guy, he was actually qualified to BE a $50k guy so they gave him a $150k loan instead. Meanwhile, the $30k guy, with barely a high school education, believed the BS that the loan officers were telling him about how he can easily refi later once his property value goes up. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

The article seems to say that Mozillo isn't at fault 'cause he tried to warn us. Like a train switchman who purposely switched the tracks knowing that the train's gonna wreck so he calls and leaves a message on his boss's phone telling him. After the train wrecks, he shrugs his shoulders and says, "I tried to tell you but you wouldn't listen." Mozillo participated - he was driving the train - and he encouraged the practice with his employees. He's guilty.

Maybe Michelle is having trouble coping with Colonel Sanders switching to grilled chicken?

Mikey, that was chicken of you! Sure, you got a leg up on the competition here, but you must keep abreast of the issue. Your fowl language took me aback, you got under my skin. I don't know eggsacktly where I'm going with this one, but I do know that the news feeds don't mention anything about the Colonel. They seemed to grill the interviewees fairly well - but again, it was chicken shit to quote the Enquirer 'cause this rag is lining bird cages everywhere. That's its value.

Oh, he was no 'champion' of the underdog and you know it. He (like the other lenders) discovered that 'high risk' people could be charged higher interest rates despite having default rates that were not substantially different from 'low risk' people, and he LOVED it -- which is why they pushed it further. It was never about helping anyone. They made more money from the risky borrowers than from the good borrowers, and so they suckered everyone into borrowing like a risky borrower would borrow. If they didn't believe this, they would most certainly not have been offering interest-only loans to high income, high FICO borrowers. By making EVERYONE borrow at sub-prime rates, they made a killing. Now they're reaping the rewards of that stupidity.

On the Sidelines says

Which is patently false. But Mozilo (stupidly) believed it:

How is it false? Default rates amongst so-called "prime" borrowers are now higher than "sub-prime". Clearly the way that we judge credit worthiness is very flawed. There was supposed to be only a 5% default rate for people with credit scores above 750, but in housing we're seeing numbers nearly 4x that. But what do you expect? A guy making $20k a year can still have an 800 FICO, but that doesn't mean he can afford a $200k house. At the same time, I make over $150k a year and have a sub-700 FICO (I don't use credit very often). Who's more credit worthy?

Kevin says

On the Sidelines says

Which is patently false. But Mozilo (stupidly) believed it:

How is it false? Default rates amongst so-called “prime” borrowers are now higher than “sub-prime”. Clearly the way that we judge credit worthiness is very flawed. There was supposed to be only a 5% default rate for people with credit scores above 750, but in housing we’re seeing numbers nearly 4x that. But what do you expect? A guy making $20k a year can still have an 800 FICO, but that doesn’t mean he can afford a $200k house. At the same time, I make over $150k a year and have a sub-700 FICO (I don’t use credit very often). Who’s more credit worthy? Obviously, the guy making $20k a year is a better credit risk. I'd loan him a million, because he pays his minimums and believes in the credit system. You, on the other hand, bad risk. You might only borrow what you can afford, pay it off early, and make the rest of (us) look bad. :)

On the Sidelines says

The Enquirer broke the John Edwards story. It is the only major news source that provides credible stories on Democrats anymore.

The Enquirer is also the only reliable news source about space aliens on earth. See "Men In Black". Hell, I like to drink. No problem with that as long as no one gets hurt and work gets done. I'll probably catch some shit for this, but I think Muslims and Mormons are way too uptight and could both benefit from learning to appreciate red wine.