patrick.net

Dan8267 says

However, if I understand you correctly, the banks do pay real estate taxes once they sell the foreclosed house under the current system. Now that banks are holding on to properties for years before offloading them, this could be a sizable delay. Correct?

Not correct. Let me be very clear about something upfront: I am not a real estate lawyer nor do I claim to be. I've dabbled in some real estates ventures and have learned what I've learned.

Now, in Florida, banks do have some preferential treatment, and other states may also have bank exceptions. But as an example, let's say you wanted to buy a condo at foreclosure.

If you win the auction and gain title to the property, the first thing you need to do is pay off any superior liens (IRS, city, water, etc.) and all the unpaid back taxes. It doesn't matter if you are you or if you are a bank - if you don't do this you're just going to get foreclosed on, and a bank isn't going to lose their $80,000 house because of $2,000 in taxes.

If the property is a condo or has an HOA though, you also have to pay all of the back owed fees. For a condo or HOA charging $300/mo this can be quite significant given that, on average, uncontested foreclosures take about 2 years to go to auction.

Now, at auction, few properties actually get sold. Most of the people don't bid enough and the bank takes the title. All the same rules apply to the bank with one exception: the bank only has to pay back 6 month's worth of condo or HOA fees. But from that point forward the bank is the condo owner just like any other.

So one of the tricks the banks pull is that they start the foreclosure process, but the day of the auction they call up the clerk of court and tell them to cancel the sale. The original owner is long gone but still has the title, which means that all the debt is accruing in their name. The HOA/condo association meanwhile is getting no income and until the bank takes possession there's nothing they can do but raise rates on everyone else.

This is why if you ever go through foreclosure, stay in the house until the Sheriff shows up to remove you. It doesn't matter if your place is sold at auction - make the new owner evict you.

From what you say, I gather that banks can stall payment of taxes for months or years without incurring financial penalties like the common house owner would. If that's true, then I think that is still unjust. So, I'll revise my original statement,

They can stall payment in the hopes that they can sell the property first, but I'm pretty sure the new buyer is going to insist on a clear title. A cash buyer may have more money than sense, but anyone getting a mortgage will have a bank who insists on it.

So even then the bank isn't going to be able to get away with not paying, and interest and fees are going to accrue as they normally would. Again, this is here in Florida. In places like Detroit, on the other hand, the bank may go ahead and let the city foreclose. Then the city gets no revenue along with the liability of owning a run down shitbox.

cc0 says

All the same rules apply to the bank with one exception: the bank only has to pay back 6 month's worth of condo or HOA fees.

I decided to look this up. Turns out that it's changed and the bank* owes the lesser of (a) 12 months back fees, or (b) 1% of the mortgage amount. So if there's $3,600 in back fees on a house with a $200,000 mortgage, the bank only has to pay $2,000.

* Actually, the first mortgage holder doesn't have to be a bank, though it usually is. I can just as easily hold the first mortgage if you're buying from me and we're doing owner financing.

cc0 says

So one of the tricks the banks pull is that they start the foreclosure process, but the day of the auction they call up the clerk of court and tell them to cancel the sale. The original owner is long gone but still has the title, which means that all the debt is accruing in their name.

That sounds like fraud in my opinion.cc0 says

but I'm pretty sure the new buyer is going to insist on a clear title.

I was told by a real estate lawyer that the purpose of the foreclosure process was to ensure that the title is clear and allow the property to be sold without title worries from the buyer. Of course, I don't know whether or not he's right, but he seemed like a competent lawyer.

cc0 says

In places like Detroit, on the other hand, the bank may go ahead and let the city foreclose. Then the city gets no revenue along with the liability of owning a run down shitbox.

Yeah, and the bank probably gets a tax write-off for the property they abandoned. So who's liable if the property falls down from lack of maintenance and someone on the sidewalk gets hurt?

cc0 says

Turns out that it's changed and the bank* owes the lesser of (a) 12 months back fees, or (b) 1% of the mortgage amount.

All these little rules heavily favor the banks and encourage them to take bad risks.

Dan8267 says

That sounds like fraud in my opinion.

Not really - people are just suckers. They left voluntarily. They should have stayed until they were evicted. It's a dick move, which is why most people don't do it. Just like if you stopped paying rent: you could move out any time, but once you've started down that path you might as well follow it to the end.

Dan8267 says

I was told by a real estate lawyer that the purpose of the foreclosure process was to ensure that the title is clear and allow the property to be sold without title worries from the buyer.

I'll assume he was trying to keep things simple, but that's very much untrue. Foreclosure is when you force the courts to sell an asset on which you have a lien in hopes of getting your money back.

If you hold a second mortgage you can foreclose and take the title, but that doesn't wipe out the first mortgage. If you mow someone's lawn and don't think they're going to pay you, you can take out a lien and foreclose.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, and the bank probably gets a tax write-off for the property they abandoned.

Banks don't really have regular accounting, and they can't lose money. See my other posts in this thread for more info.

Dan8267 says

So who's liable if the property falls down from lack of maintenance and someone on the sidewalk gets hurt?

The city, thus my statement that "the city gets [...] the liability".

Dan8267 says

All these little rules heavily favor the banks and encourage them to take bad risks.

Perspective. If I sell my condo to someone owner-financed, why should I be liable if they didn't pay the fees? According to the law, as long as I'm the primary mortgage holder and I sue the association, my liability in that respect is limited.

There are many reasons banks take bad risks, but this hardly qualifies.

Dan8267 says

I was told by a real estate lawyer that the purpose of the foreclosure process was to ensure that the title is clear and allow the property to be sold without title worries from the buyer. Of course, I don't know whether or not he's right, but he seemed like a competent lawyer.

That's not completely correct, as cc0 pointed out. A foreclosure only gives you a clean title as to any junior liens. A senior lien will still remain. A bankster can foreclose on a 2nd mortgage, but in that case, the 1st mortgage would still stand, and the foreclosure sale would sell the property subject to the 1st mortgage. Occasionally this trips up amateur foreclosure buyers who don't realize they are buying a property subject to another mortgage when they are bidding. Tax liens are senior, so even a foreclosure of a 1st mortgage will not wipe it out.

By the way, buying a house subject to a mortgage or by assuming a mortgage was quite common in the past, but is no longer common. For example, if there was a $200K mortgage on a house and it was worth $400K, you could pay the current owner $200K and assume the mortgage. The reason you might want to do this is if the prior owner had a favorable mortgage (e.g. what if the person bought the house in the 60s and then sold it between 1973 and 1982). However, banks have been fully able to exercise due-on-sale clauses for almost 30 years now, since the Garn Act in 1982, so this concept has gone by the wayside.

Dan8267 says

That sounds like fraud in my opinion.

Fraud by whom? The prior owner who ran off?

Dan8267 says

So who's liable if the property falls down from lack of maintenance and someone on the sidewalk gets hurt?

This is almost always the owner, no matter who that is, although it could also be the leasor for a commercial lease, since a commercial lease might allocate maintenance to the leasor. There may be additional lawsuits, e.g. if the owner had contracted a company to fix the sidewalk, and that company didn't fix it, the owner may have a contract claim against the sidewalk-fixing company, but the owner would often still be liable as to the injured person.

cc0 says

Perspective. If I sell my condo to someone owner-financed, why should I be liable if they didn't pay the fees? According to the law, as long as I'm the primary mortgage holder and I sue the association, my liability in that respect is limited.

Yeah, I agree on this one. The bank theoretically has no interest in foreclosure -- they don't want to have properties on their books, because they are illiquid and are liabilities. If you seller-financed something, you would similarly expect to be blame-free here.

Seller-financing isn't as common as it once was, but it is still done in some cases in various types of property markets.

Dan8267 says

cc0 says

So one of the tricks the banks pull is that they start the foreclosure process, but the day of the auction they call up the clerk of court and tell them to cancel the sale. The original owner is long gone but still has the title, which means that all the debt is accruing in their name.

That sounds like fraud in my opinion

To clarify, it sounds like fraud to let the banks cancel the foreclosure sale in order to keep the debt accruing on the former owner who was foreclosed upon. Not that I have a lot of sympathy for fool-buyer who paid to much for a house, but once he's been foreclosed on, his credit should incur more dings.

Dan8267 says

To clarify, it sounds like fraud to let the banks cancel the foreclosure sale in order to keep the debt accruing on the former owner who was foreclosed upon. Not that I have a lot of sympathy for fool-buyer who paid to much for a house, but once he's been foreclosed on, his credit should incur more dings.

Sorry, not sure I understood your comment. Foreclosure would be a bigger hit to your credit than another 30 days late on a payment, wouldn't it?

The former owner, who now thinks he is done with his ordeal, could be held liable for HOA fees and taxes if the property is still technically in his name. Granted, this won't hurt his credit as much as the foreclosure, but it will still make it worse.

Dan8267 says

The former owner, who now thinks he is done with his ordeal, could be held liable for HOA fees and taxes if the property is still technically in his name.

Isn't that the former owner's mistake? He/she should have checked to make sure the foreclosure went through. Until the deed is rightfully held by someone else or there's a bona fide purchaser, it's still your problem.

Dan8267 says

To clarify, it sounds like fraud

It's certainly not fraud in the legal sense - it's just people being dumb (actually, ignorant is a more appropriate word, but most people don't understand words very much, either).

When you buy a house, whose name is on the title? Yours.
When you get a mortgage, whose name in on the title? Yours.
When the bank issues you a notice of foreclosure, whose name is on the title? Yours.
After the court hearing declaring you in default, whose name is on the title? Yours.
At the beginning of the foreclosure sale auction, whose name is on the title? Yours.

It's your place until the sale completes at action. If you leave before then, it's just you being dumb / not recognizing your own rights. Are you accruing debt on your HoA? If you're not paying, then of course you are - it's still your house, whether you think "you're done", or not.

How to accelerate the drop in house prices?

Government simply pays certain amount of money to underwater mortgage home owner if they sell their houses. (Maybe they can limit it to those who
never made profit via selling house in their life. e.g. new home owner).

This will help home seller to pay back the principles home owner would lose
when they sell house with negative equity.

This will make home owners willing to sell at lower price. Buyers will increase.
The house price goes down. And more people buy. -> house price bottoms out.

Of course, I don't know how this will affect mortgage back security and bond
holders. Would it be less damage than foreclosure any way?

Well, it will cost a lot of money but hey we already wasted trillions of dollars
in buying mortgage backed security anyway....

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

How to accelerate the drop in house prices?

Go to every open house you see listed and take a shit on the stairs.

If I can shit more than twice a day. I already dropped one in the toilet in this morning, and no shit available for that purpose. :-)

I agree with Patrick that house prices should keep falling and that Obama's lame attempts to stop it are foolish. But, he is buying votes here. He will try to buy the underwater soccer mom vote. He will buy the young people with student loan debt vote. He has already bought the unemployed/poor/food stamp vote.
Where I live, the people who bought the bubble were fools who were greedy. Some others were fools who were also lying on their loan apps. Ever heard of Countrywide? I personally know some of these people and I do not pity any of them. They drank the Koolaid and thought they'd be Donald Trump someday. Of course the banks are complicit, as were a whole bunch of clowns on Wall St. A pox on all of them. I would talk to my friends and ask "how long do you think that it can last, the median house price is about 15X the median salary and over 10X what a full professor makes here?" They looked back at me with their idiotic expressions and said "I don't want to miss the boat!"

clambo says

I agree with Patrick that house prices should keep falling and that Obama's lame attempts to stop it are foolish.

So you have no problem with the economy going back into recession and you losing your job?

Preventing a free fall in home prices has less to do with homeowners/keeping home prices high and more to do with the US economy.

Bring the rates to 7% and stop complete government support to banks. Just let the worst fail.

Dan8267 says

Corntrollio, how about we bury the hatchet? I'm sorry for whatever I did to hurt your feelings, but get over it man. Whatever I said that offended you was based on logic and not a personal attack.

What indicates that you hurt my feelings? Because I disagree with you sometimes? I might be more direct about that than some other people here, but that's about it. There's no agenda against you. No hatchet to bury as far as I can tell, but I'm happy to bury one.

If anything, cc0 has been saying the same thing as me. Isn't that noticeable if you read carefully?

Well I think Patrick.netters need to re-think voting for democrats again.

They are the ones heavily supporting all the bailouts/tax payer backed underwater Refis. (just this week another bailout from Obama on the underwater Refi's!!!!!)

Isnt Barack the most dissapointing democrat ever? He even has let the DEA run wild again on the medical mj dispensaries in CA. What the hell kind of democrat is he? He is a big police union democrat.

Vote for him if you are a cop with an underwater mortgage.

Can we assume one way to accelerate house price drops is to vote for republicans? I think yes.

PockyClipsNow says

They are the ones heavily supporting all the bailouts/tax payer backed underwater Refis. (just this week another bailout from Obama on the underwater Refi's!!!!!)

That's not completely true. Both parties have been willing to bail people out, just in different ways. The biggest bailouts have been under Bush thus far. The Democrats can't pass anything to do with bailouts alone because it would just be filibustered like everything else. Does that mean they haven't screwed stuff up here? Absolutely not, but both parties want to buy cheap votes, and these housing bailouts are cheap votes.

This current underwater refi program actually makes sense because it's narrowly tailored to loans that are already government-backed and that are at least 6-months current. If those loans default, it will be more expensive than this program. Some of the other bailout programs have been stupid, I agree, but this one has merits.

PockyClipsNow says

Isnt Barack the most dissapointing democrat ever? He even has let the DEA run wild again on the medical mj dispensaries in CA. What the hell kind of democrat is he? He is a big police union democrat.

This is really overblown. Obama said as a candidate that he would treat doctor-prescribed marijuana as we would treat other doctor-patient relationships. The DEA has been dealing with the gigantic dispensaries that are basically drug traffickers in disguise and don't fit under the policies put in place. The DOJ and DEA have no problem with personal-use and small scale growers, but they've always had a mandate to stop trafficking. This seems entirely consistent as long as you don't ignore the nuance.

PockyClipsNow says

Can we assume one way to accelerate house price drops is to vote for republicans? I think yes.

I'm actually not convinced of that when push comes to shove. But it'd be an interesting experiment. And it'd be the right thing to do -- less government intervention in the housing market would help it stabilize because prices would come down more.

Both Cain and Romney mentioned that foreclosures must be allowed to happen.
Someone above said that without rising house prices, our economy will continue to suck. Really? Check out Switzerland sometime and how many people own expensive houses over there.
I love using Switzerland as an example because since I visited the place I was amazed at how FREE they are and how prosperous too.
Continued efforts to inflate a popped housing bubble will always be pointless and simply delay the inevitable. American suckers: quit CRYING and realize you bought an inflated asset, you gambled and you LOST.
I would like the bank to give me new terms for my Ferrari car loan. I noticed that my car has recently become grossly underwater! If Obama would guarantee the loan, I would dearly love it.
The bonus is that my riding around in the expensive Ferrari helps our economy! Did you not know that? My living in an expensive house helps our economy! Did you not know that? Why, how silly of you if you didn't.
Housing is over, toast, done as an investment. It's a place to live. The price of the roof over your head means nothing to the economy.

clambo says

Someone above said that without rising house prices, our economy will continue to suck. Really? Check out Switzerland sometime and how many people own expensive houses over there.

I'm assuming you are refering to me. I didn't say that at all. I said that rapidly falling housing prices would lead the US back into recession. Slowly falling or relatively stable prices let the economy stumble along as it has for the past couple of years.

Again--nobody wants housing prices to go up 10%/year again. That's a straw man.

The recession will happen or will not happen regardless of the continuing drop in inflated bubble house prices.
If you go look at places like Marina, CA or Seadise CA, note how many are foreclosed. The ratio has been steadily rising for two years.
Whether or not there are jobs for the people who will transform from foreclosed owners into renters is unrelated to house prices.
Keep hoping! You can wait this out if you live to be 105.

We don't own a house yet in bay area and we are hoping for it to drop, but it's probably easier for us to say that while most of the people (most of my friends own properties) have their house underwater. As much as I would like it to drop further, but wonder the rapid decline will result huge loss of consumer confidence here (California is already bankrupt) and everything would be tightening their pockets, hence stock markets not doing well etc. You might buy a house for cheaper price, lose big in stock market or sitting on the cash where US dollars plummet against other currencies .... It just seems if everyone else spends irresponsibly till the bubble burst while you save, the money you have saved still decline in values as a result of them. Not that I'm wishing for an increase of housing price, it's just there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Everybody has something to lose if housing market crashes, stock market crashes (everything is inter-dependent) unless you have nothing to lose to start with ...

clambo says

If you go look at places like Marina, CA or Seadise CA, note how many are foreclosed. The ratio has been steadily rising for two years.

I'm not really interested in the housing situation in random communities. There will certainly be many, many areas that don't recover. They were overbuilt.

clambo says

Whether or not there are jobs for the people who will transform from foreclosed owners into renters is unrelated to house prices.

If you think the job situation is unrelated to house prices, you've got a LOT to learn.

clambo says

Keep hoping! You can wait this out if you live to be 105.

I'm not even sure what this means. I'm hoping that the US economy doesn't slip into depression. What am I waiting out?

PockyClipsNow says

Can we assume one way to accelerate house price drops is to vote for republicans? I think yes.

I think so too, LOL.

If the Republicans walk their talk -- cutting taxes on the wealthy and cutting spending on the poor -- the economy will collapse later this decade.

U-6 will be 40%, but home prices will sure be a lot lower!

Just like the 1930s -- that decade was an EXCELLENT time to buy a house (because almost nobody could).

Hipsters,

Keep not doin' what you've not been doin', not minting more Americans, so the demographic shift continues.

This would be very easy:

1. Require banks to unload homes in something like less than a month.
2. Require banks to foreclose in a reasonable amount of time (like after the first missed payment, you are out the door).
3. Remove mortgage tax deductions.
4. Ban all new mortgage loans. No using house equity either or any type of refinance of existing loans.
5. Kick out all illegal aliens.
6. Ban immigration.
7. Don't allow single family homes to be rentals.

While zzyzzx is correct, that is unpossible politically.

If you put on your 'barack obama hat' and think like a marxist you can guess what probably actually IS in store for us after his re-election (he can safely do even crazyier stuff then).

Here is my prediction what they will expand/start next as 'programs to help housing':

1. A mortgage payment for certain FHA loans will be capped at '31% of your income'. (already doing this for years with federal loan mods and this new undawata refi program). In fact they are doing this with student loans now too (capped at 10% of income regardless of how much you owe)

So what is the price of home home? doesnt matter its 31% of your income and taxpayers foot the bill for the rest.

2. More and more loan mods and undawata REFI, and down payment assistance.

3. More and more 'buy a HUD home from the feds for $100 down'.

4. More foreclosure delays, more tenants rights to rent back the same house that was just foreclosed (and/or squat)

These programs are already here, already sfaffed up, already approved, already have budgets and have been running for years. All under Obama. These programs (like most all government) will only get bigger and distort the whole economy around them even further.

Maybe you people in the Bay Area cannot afford a house due to all the S-8 renters living 'well' in your fine city. The red states all have affordable housing - the blue states punish the middle class. I would say red state is better for middle class to live and blue state is better for poor/welfare class and the very rich/well off.

"Preventing a free fall in home prices has less to do with homeowners/keeping home prices high and more to do with the US economy."

Most people fail to understand that. THey think that you can have plummeting home prices and skyrocketing foreclosures and they can just swoop in and buy for pennies on the dollar. They forget to realize that falling home prices directly increase unemployment and will bankrupt states and cities, which will mean higher taxes down the road, as well as reduced services. Less cops and more crime. Fewer teachers and lower test scores, etc.

"The red states all have affordable housing..."

Housing in Red states is not as "affordbale" as you think since wages there are generally lower.

bgamall4 says

cc0 says

Well, I'm not seeing it yet.

You have to look at the chart on this article I wrote.

That's a very confusing article. I should clarify that what I couldn't see was the claimed causality, not that it happened. Your chart and article assumes a causality which I gave alternate explanations to in my comment above.

I would like to make a request. In the article you state:

It is starting to look like the libertarians want the easy money loans, and the liberals want to control the casino [...] This seems counterintuitive, given the efforts by the libertarians to expose speculation. But the libertarian/Murray Rothbard/Ron Paul/Paul Ryan con is that in the name of freedom and restoration that comes from their massive cuts private banks, banks will be able to lend recklessly.

Easy money is the grease of innovation and bankruptcy is the lever of retribution. The argument should be made that a "bank" shouldn't be involved in the transaction at all. But we have to differentiate between the entity that takes deposits and makes loans (credit unions, S&Ls), and those entities that underwrite securities. The problem is of course that these distinctions were erased and "they" gambled with "our" money. Bankruptcy is effectively not an option because Keynesian systems don't work in reverse.

Now, "libertarians" is a broad group of people, but please don't put Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor in the same league as Ron Paul, or refer to GOP people as "his party". Ron Paul has a legitimate message for the betterment of people and nation. Republicans see only the "cut taxes" part, with a large superstitious bent, and vote in blocs. But they do have giant bags of money and a "legitimacy" that the Libertarian Party does not have. That Ron Paul is a Republican is simply a statement that the political system is driven by money, not message.

bgamall4 says

Hiding loans off balance was illegal for Enron, legal for the banks.

Enron created a related party and removed the assets and liabilities off their books to the related party. Never consolidated or disclosed the related party.

So who was the "related party" which the banks used to remove their Assets and Liabilities ?

taputu has it backwards. Employment affects house prices. Rising wages causes house prices to rise. The converse is untrue however. Lower house prices does not cause unemployment to increase. I chose Marina and Seaside, but you can look at foreclosures now in Monterey and Carmel. CARMEL!
House prices are falling and that is not a bad thing, because the rise in prices was a credit bubble, NOT based on rising income. So, this had to pop.

clambo says

Lower house prices does not cause unemployment to increase.

Really, so what happened in 2008 then?

tatupu70 says

so what happened in 2008 then?

LOL, the home ATM ran out of money.

The housing bubble blowing up was the contributory cause, but not the direct cause.

Kinda like how the 9.0 earthquake didn't cause much of Japan to become dusted with Cesium 137.

Just kinda happened! Causal chains are not important.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=33C

bgamall4 says

They hid them in SIV's. They didn't even need to create a second party, they just hid the loans from the investors completely.

Which doesnt even come close to what you orginaly said or Enron did or even NetFlix.. do you even know anything about Finance ?.

How about this .."Factoring your reveivable" the selling of your receivables to meet your cash flow...

Many do that even today from small to large companies, that too would be considered SIV. The simple case its no longer legally your receivable and you lay no claim to it. This is hardly hidding anything...

bgamall4 says

Now that is a disturbing statement. Easy money is the predatory attack of the financial community on unsuspecting main street victims.

It's context dependent and you cut out the critical bankruptcy part. Don't confuse access to capital with malinvestment. An organization that can't loose money without destroying the financial system giving money to consumers so they can pay too much is quite a different thing from going to the NSF for a grant to study chameleon reproduction or a loan to pursue an advanced degree.

bgamall4 says

He wants to cut food stamps 66 percent, balancing the abuse of banks on the hunger of children.

I don't want to get too political, but states should be able to manage their own affairs. Otherwise, why not just let the U.N. handle food stamps? But hard money could seriously disrupt bank abuses - fiat debt based money practically demands that people be abused.

bgamall4 says

[...] social security [...] a ponzi and he should not have said that.

The only difference I see between the two is that SS doesn't promise you a positive return; Medicare on the other hand .... however, it's difficult to dispute that the systems aren't founded on the same principles -- that there'll always be more money in the future. Keynesians can promise that, but that's not true in a hard money system.

bgamall4 says

Rothbard was a racist. And Rand Paul, because of his box that is libertarianism, could not support the 1964 civil rights act which allows people to eat where they want.

Well, one of those is an ad-hominem, and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves and opposed slavery. I suppose it's too bad that the Civil Rights Act didn't apply to golf courses.

cc0 says

The only difference I see between the two is that SS doesn't promise you a positive return;

You need to look harder then. SS can run indefinitely with a stable birth rate. Ponzi requires ever increasing numbers of investors.

Is Ponzi the Republican buzzword of the year or something? Every time I turn around something is being compared to or called a Ponzi scheme.

There is nothing cryptic about what I asked..

I still think that to 'accerlerate the drop in house prices' (if that is your #1 issue) then you should vote Mitt Romney.

He at least is saying 'let the foreclosures rip and dont delay em'.

Part of the 'hope' of Obama admin is hope they can reinflate the housing bubble. Why is he so loved on this blog? Isnt any policy maker who acts to keep house prices artificially high via taxpayer money working AGAINST main st and FOR the banks? Am I confused here? I would have voted for McCain but he had huge plans to 'reinflate bubble/reduce principal balance, etc' - it was shocking from a Repub but of course they are the same party arent they? they are fooling us, the banks own both parties.