Democrats accept walking away from mortgages

coadie · #1 09-17-2010, 12:05 PM

Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to say it is acceptable to walk away (23% vs. 11%)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...f_step_on.html

Housing debt is bondage. Just walk away.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1729/sur...tgage-payments

Blame the bank. It is social justice. The libs say they deserve a home and shouldn't have to pay.

Quote:

More than 9,200 of the loans insured by the FHA in the past two years have gone into default after no or only one payment, according to the Post analysis

I interviewd an internal fraud expert that told me this 8 years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

If a loan "is going into default immediately, it clearly suggests impropriety and fraudulent activity," said Kenneth Donohue, the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which includes the FHA.

Under social justice, every one is entitled to their own home even if they can't pay for it.

Baron1710 · #2 09-17-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to say it is acceptable to walk away (23% vs. 11%)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...f_step_on.html

Housing debt is bondage. Just walk away.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1729/sur...tgage-payments

Blame the bank. It is social justice. The libs say they deserve a home and shouldn't have to pay.

I interviewd an internal fraud expert that told me this 8 years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

If a loan "is going into default immediately, it clearly suggests impropriety and fraudulent activity," said Kenneth Donohue, the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which includes the FHA.

Under social justice, every one is entitled to their own home even if they can't pay for it.

It is not social justice.

The fact is the bank probably made out better on the deal than they are letting on. If they didn't they didn't accurately assess the risk. They loaned the money to the homeowner knowing two things 1. there was risk and 2. the house had a value. They loaned the money at an interest rate that was acceptable to them based on the determined amount of risk. Even if the homeowner has paid $100,000 on the 300,000 home the bank gets to keep the money plus take the house and sell it to try and make back their 200,000. The homeowner on the other hand walks away with nothing.

coadie · #3 09-17-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It is not social justice.

The fact is the bank probably made out better on the deal than they are letting on. If they didn't they didn't accurately assess the risk. They loaned the money to the homeowner knowing two things 1. there was risk and 2. the house had a value. They loaned the money at an interest rate that was acceptable to them based on the determined amount of risk. Even if the homeowner has paid $100,000 on the 300,000 home the bank gets to keep the money plus take the house and sell it to try and make back their 200,000. The homeowner on the other hand walks away with nothing.

There was political pressure to make loans.

http://www.bankofamerica.com/communi...e=cdb_neighadv

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

Actually it is social justice. The accusation was called redlining.

Th..e parties.. vo..lun..tarily.. dis..mis..s..ed th..e c..as..e o..n.. May.. 12, 1998, purs..uan..t to.. a s..ettlemen..t agreemen..t.
Plain..tif..f..’s.. Lawy..ers.. Alex..is.., H..ilary.. I. (Illin..o..is..)
F..H..-IL-0011-7500 | F..H..-IL-0011-7501 | F..H..-IL-0011-9000
C..h..ilders.., Mic..h..ael Allen.. (Illin..o..is..)
F..H..-IL-0011-7500 | F..H..-IL-0011-7501 | F..H..-IL-0011-9000
C..lay..to..n.., F..ay.. (Illin..o..is..)
F..H..-IL-0011-7500 | F..H..-IL-0011-7501 | F..H..-IL-0011-9000
C..ummin..gs.., J..ef..f..rey.. Irvin..e (Illin..o..is..)
F..H..-IL-0011-7500 | F..H..-IL-0011-7501 | F..H..-IL-0011-9000
Lo..ve, S..ara N..o..rris.. (Virgin..ia)
F..H..-IL-0011-9000
Min..er, J..uds..o..n.. H..irs..c..h.. (Illin..o..is..)
F..H..-IL-0011-7500 | F..H..-IL-0011-9000
Obam....a, Barac..k H. (I..lli..noi..s..)F..H-IL-0011-7500 | F..H-IL-0011-7501 | F..H-IL-0011-9000
Wic..kert, J..o....hn Henry.. (Illino....is..)
F..H-IL-0011-9000
Less..

Many of these were not only high risk, they were what we call the NIVA loans which didn't verify income and assets.

Look up your bank and get a score on how well they do in loans to minorities under CRA with adverse credit histories.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/DCCA/CRA/crarate.cfm

You are wrong on the paid 100,000 dollars. You are a lawyer?
with ARMS, many of the loans started as "interest onlies" and that 100,000 was next to zero dollars principle. The bank may have nearly 300,000 in principle to cover. I am sure there wasn't much spread in the 100,000

On a loan for 300,000 the amortization table may show a "payoff" basis of 292,000 on that house. That "paid 100,000" may have reduced principle by a small amount and your guess of it all going to principle is off.

coadie · #4 09-17-2010, 01:31 PM

This video covers only part of the topic. Risk ratings agencies down played the risk of the CDO's. Goldman was unloading it's Mort backed securities in 2007. Bear Sterns. Lehman and others were loaded up. AIG was a counter party in credit default swaps. BNP Paribas and a few euro banks were over invested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fewmv...layer_embedded

Bush warned against risk. The democrats all voted against audits and reform for years before the bubble.

The Dems are much more liberal in walking away from an inconveniet loan. They were early on behind Paulson in TARP bank bailout for the mandated risks underwritten by Freddie and Fannie. The GSE's Freddie and fannie were onder water and the rating agencies still highly rated their paper. A lot of foreing investor and even central banks invested in over priced high risk fannie and freddi instruments.