dagblog - Comments for "Mr. Auctioneer: Saving Our Homes One by One"

Wells Fargo--not a romantic

jollyroger — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:54:42 +0000

Wells Fargo--not a romantic stage coach company anymore. How ya doin, Zhukov?

Good to see you around.

Thanks for this, Ramona. I

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:32:36 +0000

In reply to Mr. Auctioneer: Saving Our Homes One by One

Thanks for this, Ramona. I appreciate getting details about what is being done in Michigan to confront the banks and the rule of wealth that places profit over justice.

These are encouraging rumblings you describe. There is an air of insurrection that is building on many fronts, just as surely as there has been a well-orchestrated attack on the middle class and the poor that has been underway for the last thirty years. We are treated as cattle, or as simple commodities to be used and traded and discarded in whatever way it serves the greater profit of the owners.

We are pitted one against the other not unlike dogs in a fight. I see this most keenly here in Wisconsin, and it sickens me to my core. I greatly anticipate the day when we "contestants" in this fight become sufficiently aware to look beyond the ring into the eyes of those who own the arena and who now laugh at our miseries and bet upon our misfortunes. I want us to catch them in their corpulence with their throats exposed. I want them gone.

Justice will out. We know this, but it doesn't make these present times any less scary, nor any less exciting. For more than thirty years, we have been under an intense assault. This is Class War, but it only becomes such when we begin fighting back. We are the 99%. Occupy Wall Street.

If you recall, in 2008 we

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:10:40 +0000

In reply to Resistance, I hear ya. The

If you recall, in 2008 we were all encouraged to throw open the doors to the Treasury and allow hundreds of millions of dollars to flow into Wall Street almost overnight! And we were told to hurry on the basis of a four-page "plan" written out by Goldman Sachs, er, I mean our Secretary of the Treasury. This money was supposed to deal with all the "toxic assets" that would surely be a drag on the economy for the foreseeable future, and those "toxic assets" were rightly defined as the inflated asset mortgages that were now under water.

Not hardly a nickel paid or an ounce of attention devoted to individual homeowners subsequent to this. But we did back the bad bets placed at casinos like AIG at 100 cents to the dollar - money that ultimately protected every cent Goldman Sachs had wagered as well.

And now? After taking all our tax dollars to hold themselves harmless, these banks sniff at troubled mortgage holders looking for relief. "Have they no workhouses?" they ask. "Don't they know who's boss here? They will accept OUR terms or have no terms at all!"

We need to stick them all in the neck and bleed these banks like stuck pigs. There is no redemption. We are the 99 percent. Occupy Wall Street. And let them take their bought-and-paid-for political parties - Republican AND Democrat - down with them as well.

Resistance, I hear ya. The

erica20 — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:35:54 +0000

In reply to Erica, I blame the the

Resistance, I hear ya. The lack of response from Democrats throughout this crisis has been thoroughly disappointing. And any Democrat who wants to know why certain groups and individuals aren't out there knocking on doors for him or her, only need to look at whether those groups and individuals have lost a house or not.

People tend to take that sort of thing quite personally, and disappear forever from the volunteer lists of politicians they would otherwise support.

Erica, I blame the the

Resistance — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:54:14 +0000

In reply to There is definitely more

Erica, I blame the the problem, on the lack of leadership at the top.

Obama should have been primaried, because of his callousness towards homeowners.

America is screwed, whether we get Romney or Obama.

The money changers get to maintain control with either nominee.

Obama hurt the working class .......TOO .....

and for that he'll get rewarded?

The message ....Go ahead and hurt the working class, just don't do it as bad, as the republicans.

There is definitely more

erica20 — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:49:30 +0000

In reply to It's always "follow the

There is definitely more money to be made in the government bailouts. A few years ago, Firstbank (I think it was Firstbank, anyway) was sold to a larger bank, and I want to say that larger bank was USBank but I am not sure.

In any case, as part of the transaction, the bad mortgages were sold in a complex public/private partnership. As I understand it, the terms involved the government chipping in enough to make it worth the private investors' while to take on the bad debt. In this scenario, all the rich folk get to stay whole, the government doesn't take on the entire debt, and the whole thing takes place way over the heads of individual homeowners. Problem fixed, right?

Of course the downside is that any effort to do anything with individual mortgages cuts into the pre-established profits arrived at in said agreement. I don't know if variations on similar agreements are in place for all the mortgages in the country, but if so, it may explain why loan modification appears to be mostly for show, a little red meat thrown down for the occasional deserving old couple with a group of activists behind them, but is not being undertaken on any kind of grand scale. There's just no financial incentive to save anyone's home, even if there are financial incentives being advertised, because the pre-existing bailout is so lucrative. Better to just let the thing "run its course" and let all that money keep on flowing upward.......

At this point, I don't think there is anything to do about it. Many of the people with "trick" mortgages initiated between 2000 and 2005 have already lost their homes or are going to lose them. If there was going to be any organized effort, it should have been to rewrite that group of mortgages. Now the situation has shifted, and much larger numbers of people are losing their homes because of economic troubles stemming from the first mortgage crisis. In my mind, these two crises are different animals, and no politician in his or her right mind would be willing to get behind the kind of forgiveness effort required to solve the problem. The moral hazard people would scream communism like nobody's business.

At this point, from a business standpoint and I make no claim on the relative morality, anyone currently in danger of losing their home is probably going to lose it. They should stop making their payments, use the cash as best they can, figure out how to declare bankruptcy if necessary, and work on figuring out how to live in a post-real-estate world. I know that sounds like a cheesy infomercial, but I think that is where we are right now.

There's also huge profits to

Aunt Sam — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:26:54 +0000

In reply to It's always "follow the

There's also huge profits to be made from speculators/investors who have the means to purchase properties and wait for the turn around. Interesting to cross reference some of the largest ones with shareholders and others who are much less than the touted six degrees of separation.

It's always about money in these instances. The government has not done a very good job in this area, but public pressure has caused a bit of a increase in the intensity of their 'investigations' - but not near enough. The answers are there for those who care enough to do the research.

It's always "follow the

Ramona — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:50:08 +0000

In reply to As one who has professional

It's always "follow the money" these days, isn't it? I agree that there will always be some foreclosures that are legit because there will always be some people who screw up and bring their problems on themselves, or who lose jobs and have to downsize, etc., but when the foreclosure numbers are as at pandemic level, something's gotta give.

Seems to me the reasons for it have been established. Now the question is, why isn't something being done about it? Why aren't the banks cooperating by dropping charges and modifying mortgages? Why would a bank arbitrarily double the price of a mortgage payoff when they had already agreed to the terms?

I venture it's because there's more money in government bailouts than there is in reinstating a low-interest mortgage.

But again. . .what to do about it?

(No subject)

Richard Day — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:59:32 +0000