Skip to main content

View Diary: Wells Fargo CEO Meets a Desperate Homeowner Facing Foreclosure, Flees (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The lady was just asking for a loan modification (0+ / 0-)

    that's true. The first line-item in the diary is a principal reduction.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 04:12:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  A Successful Loan Modification (0+ / 0-)

      May in fact require a principal reduction. In which case, I assume you'd oppose her efforts (given your other comments here?)

      •  Nah, you can't pin a blanket opposition to loan (0+ / 0-)

        modifications based on a major uncomfortable feeling with one proposed aspect of some loan modifications. You're assuming she would need one and then using that to frame my opinion on principal reductions as opposing her.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:07:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I Asked to *To* Assume She Needs one (0+ / 0-)

          And express your opinion about principal reductions.  Sounds as if youre not comfortable doing that, for whatever reasons, and would rather accuse me of trying to trick you into looking like you oppose a sympathetc person.  

          I am not superficial enough to worry about how folks look expressing their opinion, you included.  Neither am I at the level of high-school popularity contest playing you tacitly assume when you suggest my motive is anything more than what it is: eliciting your opinion.  But it's all good.  I beleive you have expressed an opinion, even without wanting to.


          •  I expressed discomfort. Snarkily and perhaps (0+ / 0-)

            a bit clumsily, but that's what it was.

            For me it depends, and the problem with these 'proposals' that we like to put forward is that the details are never discussed or worked out.

            I think principal reductions are OK in theory for loans on houses that are notably worth less than the mortgage taken (though I would make an exception on principal reduction for people who took out 120% loans, etc). I do not think that principal reduction should be done just to make a payment affordable, regardless of the circumstances. I don't want to see people lose their houses at all, but we also cannot simply grant people indefinite occupation rights on houses that are worth, both on the market and as assessed by the municipality, more than the homeowner can afford.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:31:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair Enough (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Demeter Rising, annominous, jrooth

              And thank you for answering directly.  We actually don't differ, I think, on the fundamental idea of principal reduction being used as a way to make home affordable for the existing occupant with limitations.  Where we differ, I think, is in the calculus of who should bear the financial brunt of loss of market.  I am more of a 1/3-1/3-1/3 person, believing that the ideal solution spreads the losses 1/3 to the homeowner, 1/3 to the lender and 1/3 to the investor.  That would indeed mean principal reductions by definition--which is why nobody has come up with any proposal in Washington that does more than ask for lender and investor concessions as a "favor."  

              As far as "indefinite occupation rights", I'm not sure what you mean.  It's sort of hard to know what is best to do here, when the overwhelming majority of people are not just squatting refusing to pay the mortgage, but have attempted to pay what they can and have been refused over and over again. You would think that lenders would not deliberately increase their losses as a way to achieve foreclosure by refusing even some of the mortgage payments, but that's not true: as long the mortgage isn't paid, the loss is insured to the lender, which ultimately benefits the investor.)   Personally, this was the one area I'd have liked to see government do more in, rather than the weak-tea solutions it actually cooked up.

              The one thing you simply have to let go of, because it is not only demonstrably false but has been admitted false, by no less than Ben Bernacke himself:  the idea that this has anything to do with keeping folks in homes that are more than the homeowner can afford.  What drove this entire process was not folks trying to "buy too much home", but the securities markets demanding more and more mortgage paper, or any quality, be produced to support the investment market.  Seriously-Bernacke admitted this in May 2007.  Yet this particular right-wing lie continues, and you've inadvertently repeated it.  I don't know if it is the foundation of your general opposition to principal reduction but if it is, it's a false foundation.

              Thanks again for responding in good faith.

              •  That's not the basis for my opposing feelings at (0+ / 0-)

                all: keeping folks in homes that are more than they can afford.

                You bring up interesting points.

                1. How do you differentiate between the homeowner and the investor? Not rhetorical, just wasn't sure what you were implying.

                2. There are a notable number here who are calling for a suspension of evictions and foreclosures until something anomalous happens. I'd be for a new layer of assessment via a gov or nonprofit 3rd party, but not for just a straight-up ending of them. If you've lost your job $50k job and cannot find equal employment after x amount of time, you cannot (and shouldn't try to) afford your mortgage even if you have a fantastic fixed rate on a home that you have equity in. So, in the context of what some people are calling for here, it's not just a RW talking point about people keeping homes they cannot afford.

                But let's not kid ourselves while we work on a practical solution: this is lenders' and banks' fault much more than any homeowners who had the financial wherewithal to make a good decision and instead made a bad one. We cannot have a country that gambles on the lives of people consistently....even really smart people lose lots of money in casinos and have a hard time not going back.

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:53:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Allowing HOUSING to fall into the investor-gambler (0+ / 0-)

                  banking game was immoral, imo.  Extremely immoral. Biblically-punishably immoral.

                  It was a failure of Clinton's, it resulted from the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was imposed by Gramm and Gingrinch and their band of merry goopers, amidst threats of impeachment for blue dress violations, perjury, "murder, fraud, rape".  Some people here have called the Reagan/Gingrinch era "the long con", and the fact that they recognize there was a long con is one reason I keep coming back here.

                  There are some commodities that are necessities for modern life, not luxuries: basic shelter (not necessarily a McMansion, but if someone finds themselves and their families in a McMansion they can no longer afford, it's probably better for everyone if they stay put until they can cash out without jeopardizing their access to future housing), basic nutrition, basic medical and dental care, basic transportation, 24-hour access to a shower, a phone and internet, basic education, these are NECESSITIES of modern life.  Without all of these life-style elements, nobody in our day and age can get a job or keep a job, or otherwise engage in the required social activities so as to be able to earn a living to pay for the necessities listed above.  

                  The goopbaggers will FORCE everyone who has sex to conceive; they will FORCE everyone who is conceived to be born; they will turn a blind eye to the many who will be born, and suffer, and die WITHOUT these necessities, because Reagan, Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan, Kenyan-marxist-socalist-I-want-my-country-back 30-years-of-divide and conquer.

                  The necessities listed above constitute the modern-day cave and modern-day cave life-style. There are no multitudinous mastadon herds to hunt, kill, and eat, and besides, if there were, how would you go about it?. There are not even unclaimed caves. No, there are open spaces for people to go jogging in and it is acceptable to them if they have to share these spaces with mountain lions and black bears, but they do not care to share these spaces with homeless people who have no place else to go, and live and crap in the open spaces, and rob joggers to make a living.

                  This is a feature, not a bug, of sharing the globe with 7B other people. The existence I describe above, aka "wage slavery", should be the lowest common denominator of our social system, for people.

                  Cucarachas are supposed to inherit the earth, but in the meantime, there is a meantime.

                  Do you begrudge society's help to others, is that it? You want to joke about getting your share too? when some of the other 7B get a helping hand, you want some of that free grease too, is that as far as you can think while you are on a dKos roll?  

                  Your comment, so blithe and uncaring and concise, was disgusting. It deserved an HR.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site