patrick.net

klarek says

The more we act like them, the quicker this country is going to look like the land of Mad Max.

The LESS we act like them....

The LONGER we let them act like THAT.....

The quicker this country is going to look like Chile.

Applying "honor" if you will, unequally when it comes to money, only encourages the transfer of wealth to the groups on whom no social constraints are applied.

"What's good for the goose, is good for the gander".

klarek says

PR is an absolutely horrible idea. I can’t believe that five years into this mess anybody is dumb enough to believe that’s a correct approach.

principal converted to appurtenant liens is a good idea, I think.

It's not a giveaway, it's just a recapitalization of the loan.

This particular approach doesn't quite do this I guess, but if I were running things I'd look into how to get this done.

We could also just create some 2% financing vehicles with a trillion of new Fed-created money to help with affordability.

The money the borrowers borrowed is already gone now, the question is who becomes the bagholder.

The current default process just results in a lot of economic losses and also prime bottomfeeding opportunities for rent-seekers.

It is entirely broken, 5 years in.

Vicente says

The LESS we act like them….

The LONGER we let them act like THAT…..

Don't beat them, join them? Be a piece of shit banker? Maybe we should all be realtors too.

People like you implore other people to behave like savage deadbeats to justify your own behavior and deranged sense of how social justice will prevail. It's a sad statement for any individual who believes they have to be a low-lying sack of shit if they want to get by in this world. This is a lifestyle you are endorsing.

In the end, your fantasy would result in us living in a world where nobody can be trusted. Rather than being kind enough to lend a neighbor your hammer, he's going to realize the only way to use it is to break into your house, steal it, then crack you in your skull with it if you get in his way.

Vicente says

Haven’t seen you doing any postings entitled BANKER BAILOUT OUTRAGE!

You have not seen my emails and letters to Senators and Representatives. Patrick.net is not the only place I share thoughts on policies adopted by Congress.

Troy says

principal converted to appurtenant liens is a good idea, I think.

It’s not a giveaway, it’s just a recapitalization of the loan.

Principal deferment? Not very popular. Been tried, but pretty much rejected by strategic defaulters because it's not a direct line into their future profits. However, I have no problem with this concept in principle if it keeps somebody in a house they want and isn't a large burden on taxpayers.

Troy says

The current default process just results in a lot of economic losses and also prime bottomfeeding opportunities for rent-seekers.

It is entirely broken, 5 years in.

These things will just keep cycling through. If strategic default were the end of the world, or the losses unbearable, the govt could take extreme actions to deter people from walking away from a house payment they can afford. This could effectively end now were the correct punitive measures put into place.

klarek says

Vicente says

The LESS we act like them….
The LONGER we let them act like THAT…..

Don’t beat them, join them? Be a piece of shit banker? Maybe we should all be realtors too.
People like you implore other people to behave like savage deadbeats to justify your own behavior and deranged sense of how social justice will prevail. It’s a sad statement for any individual who believes they have to be a low-lying sack of shit if they want to get by in this world. This is a lifestyle you are endorsing.
In the end, your fantasy would result in us living in a world where nobody can be trusted. Rather than being kind enough to lend a neighbor your hammer, he’s going to realize the only way to use it is to break into your house, steal it, then crack you in your skull with it if you get in his way.

Reduction ad absurdum.

Has people defaulting on their houses NOW led to them bashing your skull in? No? Did the barbed wire and mines keep them out of your compound?

Most people can see the distinction here.

Vicente says

Has people defaulting on their houses NOW led to them bashing your skull in? No? Did the barbed wire and mines keep them out of your compound?

Most people can see the distinction here.

I'm talking about what you're advocating. You said that if we DON'T all do this, we're going to end up like Chile. How can you say that what I'm saying would result from your idealized solution wouldn't happen because it hasn't already, when your solution is nothing but a dream of yours, for people to start behaving like savage cannibals? There's a fundamental flaw in your logic right there.

Did I miss something? How does principal reduction result in people acting like savage canibals?

HousingWatcher says

How does principal reduction result in people acting like savage canibals?

Trace back upthread and realize we weren't talking about principal reduction. It started with my response to this comment:

"When businesses cancel contracts, including ones they took out loans to make, it’s called a smart business decision and is evaluated amorally. When members of the public do this with personal assets, all of a sudden morality comes into play."

klarek says

You said that if we DON’T all do this, we’re going to end up like Chile.

Chile is not Mad Max. Perhaps you have mistakenly jumped to the conclusion I meant that.

Chile is however #1 on the Income Inequality list. We are at #4. We seem to be doing everything we can to move up on that list.

HousingWatcher says

Did I miss something? How does principal reduction result in people acting like savage canibals?

Government can't simply pick a group of people and give them principal reduction at the cost to everyone else. They have to reduce everyone else principal/rents, otherwise it's a lashback of a lot more than moral hazard.

ChrisLA says

Government can’t simply pick a group of people and give them principal reduction at the cost to everyone else. They have to reduce everyone else principal/rents, otherwise it’s a lashback of a lot more than moral hazard.

Americans are adept at convoluted systems of gimmes and subsidies already. As HousingWatcher says, you haven't made any kind of case for principal reduction leading to cannibal anarchy.

ChrisLA says

Government can’t simply pick a group of people and give them principal reduction at the cost to everyone else. They have to reduce everyone else principal/rents, otherwise it’s a lashback of a lot more than moral hazard.

I don't know---is there a lashback against credit card abusers? Once their past due balance gets to the collection agency, they usually settle for pennies on the dollar. How is this any different? Why isn't there moral outrage against the collection agencies??

Vicente says

Americans are adept at convoluted systems of gimmes and subsidies already. As HousingWatcher says, you haven’t made any kind of case for principal reduction leading to cannibal anarchy.

You haven't made any case as to how this will improve the situation. It's at the very least going to piss off the vast majority of people who aren't underwater.

klarek says

You haven’t made any case as to how this will improve the situation. It’s at the very least going to piss off the vast majority of people who aren’t underwater.

You assume most Americans can be bothered to look up from American Idol and notice. There are thousands of things they theoretically ought to be outraged by, which apparently they are not. For example as a renter I find the mortgage interest deduction offensive, and yet it does not lead me to knifing my landlord(s) and neighbors. I expect a handful of Teabaggers would stand on a street corner with signs, and the rest would simply accept it. "Hey the Johnsons aren't being evicted after all, Fred are you listening to me? Fred, turn off the damn football game".

Vicente says

You assume most Americans can be bothered to look up from American Idol and notice.

Somebody who has slaved for 30 years to pay down an amount equal to what the beneficiaries of SD are getting as a gift for their irresponsible behavior will most certainly notice, with a vengeance, no matter how much his fatass is glued to the couch.

Vicente says

There are thousands of things they theoretically ought to be outraged by, which apparently they are not.

There are those things which passively occur beyond one's scope of awareness. Principal Reduction isn't passive at all, it's a direct transfer of money from those who save and pay their bills to those who live beyond their means. Just the mention of it is enough to outrage people.

Vicente says

For example as a renter I find the mortgage interest deduction offensive, and yet it does not lead me to knifing my landlord(s) and neighbors.

I think the MID is unfair too, but its unfairness is relatively passive. It has existed since before we were born, and most people don't really give it more thought other than "cool, a bribe from the govt for owning a home". When lawmakers are forced to lay it out there to the people for what it actually is, sentiment will in all likelihood shift in favor of its demise.

Vicente says

I expect a handful of Teabaggers would stand on a street corner with signs, and the rest would simply accept it. “Hey the Johnsons aren’t being evicted after all, Fred are you listening to me? Fred, turn off the damn football game”.

Fred isn't watching the game; he's staring beyond the TV, thinking about how the asshole Johnsons just got a $100k gift from taxpayers to keep their house, in an instant getting what it took Fred over a decade to pay off on his own mortgage. His eyes are directed at the TV, but he is lost in a murderous trance as a bunch of corrupt politicians decided that it was time to dole out massive amounts of dollars to the public, but choosing only those who have lived selfishly and irresponsibly to receive the reward. Fred finally hears his wife's words again and looks out the window. He sees the Johnsons, who have been living a life of luxury since they made their last house payment three years ago, and he is only thinking one thing. Hint: it's not the ball game.

Vicente says

You assume most Americans can be bothered to look up from American Idol and notice.

First of all lets not generalize all of us Americans. Secondly, I'm your average American, and I'm not even remotely aware of what happens on American idol. That show is for younger crowd which probably does not vote anyway. Crony hand outs and bail outs upset me to no end.

And you do what about it? Write posts on the misc housing forum?

I'm sorry but there's little evidence of any organized and active populace ready to LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR over various policy changes.

Your best shot at seeing citizen outrage turn into action was during the original 700 billion dollar TARP handouts, and that clearly fizzled and amount to nothing more than a few people marching. At this point it seems pretty much everyone has gotten used to things, and Quantitative Easing 3.0 or HAMP 3.5 as the OUTRAGE OF THE WEEK may merit mention on fringe blogs. Yes people will get into their Outrage Echo Chamber and work themselves up over it, but is not registering at all with Jane Q. Public.

The original justification for TARP 1.0 as I recall was Hank Paulson roughly telling people if he didn't get his 700 billion dollars RIGHT NOW with no strings attached it would be cannibal anarchy by next week.

I didn't believe him then (although Congress did), and I don't believe your dire predictions either.

Write to politicians and vote.

I don't have dire predictions, you are confusing me with someone else here. I'm saying it isn't right for government to pick winners and losers and make anyone pay for frivolous mistakes of others.

Vicente says

And you do what about it?

Any politician who backs principal reduction will get killed at the polls. Obama has a very good chance at winning a second term. You think if he spent over a trillion dollars to subsidize bubble-buyers' profits he'd have any chance of winning? You think he's dumb enough to back that sort of plan? I don't, I don't think any sensible politician would touch it, least of all because it won't do anything to help our economy.

"Any politician who backs principal reduction will get killed at the polls."

Right, because I am sure the #1 issue on the minds of voters is principal reduction. In case you did not hear, there is a little Medicare fight goign on. Oh, and there is 10% unemployment.

"Obama has a very good chance at winning a second term. You think if he spent over a trillion dollars to subsidize bubble-buyers’ profits he’d have any chance of winning? You think he’s dumb enough to back that sort of plan?"

Have you not been paying attention to the news for the last 2 years?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-02-18-foreclosure-judges-loan-modifications_N.htm

HousingWatcher says

Right, because I am sure the #1 issue on the minds of voters is principal reduction. In case you did not hear, there is a little Medicare fight goign on. Oh, and there is 10% unemployment.

There is more than one issue out there, again HW world is not black and white. You government guys are just weird.

what does principal reduction have to do with unions?

HousingWatcher says

Right, because I am sure the #1 issue on the minds of voters is principal reduction.

Voters aren't overly concerned with us having a nuclear war with Russia or mass public executions as a govt response to free speech, because those aren't legitimate concerns. That doesn't mean that they'd acquiesce to it happening.

It's not an issue because they only people pushing for it on a national level are those who are underwater and a few retards trolling patrick.net.

Your loopy logic is amazing.

HousingWatcher says

Have you not been paying attention to the news for the last 2 years?

That was over two years ago and fewer than 2% of underwater owners saw any principal reduction. Nice try.

"That was over two years ago and fewer than 2% of underwater owners saw any principal reduction. Nice try."

You said Obama would never support principal reductions. I pointed out that your comment was dead wrong and the fact is that principal reductions was a component of his plans. If 2% of homeowners saw principal reductions, then that means Obama supported it.

Where did you get the 2% number from klarek? I can't find any source for it. I found the number is closer to 15%:

http://www.walletpop.com/2010/03/25/chase-only-major-mortgage-servicer-not-offering-principal-reduct/

HousingWatcher says

You said Obama would never support principal reductions.

I said he'd never spend the trillion+ dollars to cover their negative equity positions.

HousingWatcher says

I pointed out that your comment was dead wrong and the fact is that principal reductions was a component of his plans.

You didn't prove I was wrong, you distorted my remarks to attempt to prove me wrong.

HousingWatcher says

If 2% of homeowners saw principal reductions, then that means Obama supported it.

They saw SOME principal reduction as part of their modification. Okay, sure, Obama supported it. This isn't what we were talking about above, which was mass-scale principal reduction.

HousingWatcher says

Where did you get the 2% number from klarek? I can’t find any source for it. I found the number is closer to 15%

Don't remember where, read it in a news article probably linked on patrick or on IHB within the past few days.

That 15% you're quoting is a percentage of the loan mods that were made. Out of all the houses that are or were underwater, are even 10% of them getting loan mods backed by the govt? Even at that mark, it would be fewer than 2% overall.