The new “national settlement with the banks” will not stop one foreclosure

The new settlement between the Federal government, 49 state Attorneys
General and five of the biggest, most crooked banks is a complete
fraud and another bailout for the banks.

Not one foreclosure will be stopped in the coming years by this
settlement.

· Only $1.5 billion of the $25 billion settlement will go to people
who lost their homes from 2008 to 2011 – paying a pitiful $2,000
[[over three years) to people who were victims of banks who criminally
stole their homes.

· A pitiful $17 billion will go toward principal reduction for
“underwater loans” where people owe much more than their property
is currently worth. But it is estimated that 11 million borrowers are
$700 billion underwater right now.

· $5 billion will go to the states to compensate for losses suffered
due to loss in property values. But there has been a loss of $1.9
trillion in home equity from the foreclosure crisis – resulting in
city, county and state layoffs and service cuts.

MORATORIUM NOW! COALITION SPECIAL MEETING

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2012, 7:00 PM

5920 Second Avenue, Detroit, MI [[at Antoinette St.)

Did you even read your post?

"Not one foreclosure will be stopped in the coming years by this settlement."

According to your post - $17 billion or close to 70% of the settlement will be principal reductions for people underwater on their homes. That means someone who owes 200K on a house worth 100K will only be liable for 100K going forward - so that struggling homeowner will have much lower payments and this will absolutely help to avoid foreclosure. Sure it's not everyone - but it’s still a huge amount. I would argue it does more to stop foreclosures in coming years than it does for people who previously were foreclosed.

Sounds like another unfounded rant session...

I had a very underwater B of A mortgage. In the months leading up to this principal reduction, B of A has been dumping tens of thousands of underwater mortgages to other lenders. It smells fishy to me, as if they were trying to lessen the impact.

Ridgeabilly, you're for having a foreclosure moratorium, you do realize that if we don't allow banks to foreclose on people who aren't paying that mortgage lending will cease to exist, right? You'll turn the country into a stark black and white of people that own property, and the people that will forever have to rent.

Here's an idea, if you can't afford your mortgage and you're not eligible for government programs, then allow your home to be foreclosed on. Take the 6+ months of mortgage and rent free living to build up your savings, and get into a more affording housing situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

I had a very underwater B of A mortgage. In the months leading up to this principal reduction, B of A has been dumping tens of thousands of underwater mortgages to other lenders. It smells fishy to me, as if they were trying to lessen the impact.

Ridgeabilly, you're for having a foreclosure moratorium, you do realize that if we don't allow banks to foreclose on people who aren't paying that mortgage lending will cease to exist, right? You'll turn the country into a stark black and white of people that own property, and the people that will forever have to rent.

Here's an idea, if you can't afford your mortgage and you're not eligible for government programs, then allow your home to be foreclosed on. Take the 6+ months of mortgage and rent free living to build up your savings, and get into a more affording housing situation.

---

Renting offers flexabilty, which owning doesn't. Many people don't want to own, especially now with most houses being worthless, upkeep, taxes and banks and mortgage companies that are crooked. It will be year's before the market comes back People choose to rent for a reason, not necessarily because they have to.

People with mortgages are not victims. They took risk. They should have understood the risk. The risk when you take out too big of a mortgage is that you may lose your job and lose your home. Another risk is assuming that the cost of a home is always going to go up and you will build lots of equity in a short period. As we have seen. This does not happen. Yes this sucks, but thats the way it is.

There are ways to lessen your risk. You can lessen your risk by not assuming that you should buy the maximum amount of house that you have been approved for. All you are doing is making the banks and the developer/salesman rich at your expense/increased level of risk. It is wise to buy a home that you can afford by working 2 minimum wage jobs [[as there is no gaurantee that the gravy train will last forever) and to put down 20% so you don't have to pay the devil his PMI.

If you don't want the risk, rent something you can afford. Don't spend all of you dough on rent as you should be saving twice as much as those who have mortgages else you will be working until you're 80 years old.

This will mean for many driving an older car, no cable, no smart phones. Big deal. Those are wants - not needs. We need to get rid of this entitlement way of thinking for everything and become more responsible for ourselves.

In recent months, there has been a tremendous upturn in the movement
against foreclosures and evictions. From New York to California the
Occupy movement, unions and many community organizations have
organized direct actions at people’s homes and at the banks to
prevent families from being thrown out of their homes by the banksters
– and the federal government which bails them out.

However, as important as these actions are, they will be not enough
to stop the two million foreclosures that already are being processed
and the additional 3.8 million foreclosures projected to take place
over the next 2 years. Along with continuing the direct actions it’s
time to raise the demand that the government place a Two Year National
Moratorium to halt foreclosures and foreclosure-related evictions. A
Moratorium would keep people in their homes and stabilize our
communities while a long term solution to the crisis, including
reducing principal to the actual value of the homes, is developed and
implemented.

In the 1930’s, 25 states enacted moratoriums on foreclosures. The
Michigan Moratorium Act meant that anyone facing foreclosure got an
automatic 5 year stay on the foreclosure, with a judge ordering a
reasonable payment based on the homeowner’s ability to pay. These
laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Home
Building & Loan Building Association v Blaisdell, which held that the
people’s right to survive during an economic emergency superseded
the contract clause of the U.S. constitution. The moratoriums were not
a result of the generosity of the legislatures or the courts, but were
a direct result of the actions of workers and communities flooding the
streets and preventing the foreclosures that were being carried out.
The legislatures and courts essentially ratified the moratoriums that
were won in the streets.

The demand for a Moratorium on Foreclosures has never been more
timely. Today, with the federal government owning or backing 75% of
mortgage loans through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and HUD, and paying the
banks full value for the inflated, fraudulent and predatory loans, the
President has the absolute authority to implement a two year
moratorium on foreclosures and foreclosure-related evictions through
executive order. And the President could immediately authorize a
reduction of the principal to actual market values on all mortgages
owned by the federal government.

The Moratorium Now! Coalition, which has been raising the demand for
a moratorium on foreclosures and challenging foreclosures and
evictions in Michigan for the past five years, invites all activists
to come to Detroit—the city hit hardest by the economic war on the
99%—for a one day conference on March 31, 2012. The conference will
be an opportunity to share our experiences fighting foreclosures and
evictions through direct actions. We will share legal strategies in
challenging the banks in federal and state courts. And we will plan a
campaign to raise and win the demand for a National Two Year
Moratorium on Foreclosures and Foreclosure-Related evictions.

"reducing principal to the actual value of the homes"

So I BORROWED $200,000 to buy a home ten years ago and it's now worth $100,000 so POOF the loan is reduced to only $100k and the remainder that I willingly BORROWED goes away. I'm sure you would also offer that if/when the value of my home goes UP that I'll then owe the new principal???

The Max per house would be $20,000 principal reduction....doesn't really help when you're $100K plus underwater and you're still likely going to short sell or walk away.

I don't understand why the victims only got $5 billion of the $23.5 billion settlement; a lousy 20%. The action is about bank representatives illegally foreclosing on homes by performing hundreds of thousands of misdemeanor counts. It is a misdemeanor to falsely declare that you have verified that your files prove that a loan is in default and owned by you. There is no law that puts you at risk of being prosecuted or sued if someone owes you more money than their house is worth and the government can not sue you because property values have gone down.

Most of the underwater properties and defaults are not original purchase loans on a primary residence. The data doesn't support this fairy tale description that most underwater homeowners were just hardworking fellas that saved up a solid downpayment and did their best over the years to pay down their homes in the hopes of one day enjoying the American dream. Most of these people were not tricked into taking out a loan to buy a $200k home that is now worth $100k.

Most of these underwater borrowers took out a $100k loan on a $100k house and then refinanced for higher and higher amounts to buy things they could not afford. They don't owe the $200k on their home; they owe $100k on their house and $100k on their boat and car and vacation and new appliances. If you rent and take out loans for all these luxuries, you are expected to pay it back, so why shouldn't home owners be expected to pay for their luxuries as well? A home is something you earn, not a license to rob a bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DLife

The Max per house would be $20,000 principal reduction....doesn't really help when you're $100K plus underwater and you're still likely going to short sell or walk away.

---

So, it sounds like this guy you are talking about only thinks he needs to live up to his promise to pay based on how it will affect him rather than how it will affect his neighbors and those that trusted him with a loan. Seeing how you feel $20,000 won't help this guy, are you saying that it should be given to others with better character that would think $20,000 is an incredibly generous gift?

i thought i misheard this idea on the radio.

$3k aint gonna save anyone.

someone is still making money off of this situation. why else would you kick someone out of a house in a market where no one is buying houses? houses sit empty for years. gotta pay to have the house checked on and mow the lawns. crazyness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by compn

i thought i misheard this idea on the radio.

$3k aint gonna save anyone.

someone is still making money off of this situation. why else would you kick someone out of a house in a market where no one is buying houses? houses sit empty for years. gotta pay to have the house checked on and mow the lawns. crazyness.

---

Checking on the house and cutting the grass is not going to keep the scrappers away.

Sad.