Prepare to be outraged: Home foreclosure story - Page 2

Really?

Isn't our entire economy still fundamentally based on house prices?

If they crash again, our economy will crash again.

This is a good point

holy sh*t. I've been hearing a lot about this kind of scenario. Because banks messed up on their paper work, you can claim the forclosure invalid and move back in ( despite the fact you've been missing payments for over a year ).

I've finally saved up enough money for a down payment on a house, but this kind of shit scares me. So I buy a forclosure and 3 months later the previous owners decide to move back in?

Title Insurance is very important!

Unless the U.S. can revert back to a manufacture base economy, as long as the housing market is suffering like it is now, is as long as the economy will suffer.

To be honest, I've been helping a relative with their loan modification and the service just varies from person to person. Each rep will tell you something different, each department gives you different information. Relative's a small business owner who suffered a few red months, forced them to miss a couple of payments. The bank told them it was impossible to get them on a forbearance plan, recommended them to apply for a loan mod, threaten to foreclose several times due to the missed payment from earlier on but get this though, because the home was under foreclosure the system weren't allowed to make any payments unless they payed the missed payments all together. They approved a trial mod for them, only to deny them of a permanent mod. They were allowed to pay another $9-12k in mortgages only to be denied and put into foreclosure again. And its been an on going process.
The problem is can you really blame the people? I agree there are some deadbeats, but come on. Helping my relative go through this just pisses me off and I'm not even the person involved. Oh get this, their best advice to them was the cut down on the spending when they were going through the number crunching process over the phone with a rep when it clearly shows that they barely make enough to cover the monthly mortgage right now.
The dilemma for them is do they continue to send in their payments? When they're at risk of foreclosure. To them what's the difference, they send in a payment and they're still at risk month after month. So if they were to pay another $9-12k in mortgages only to be foreclosed on 3 months later then they're down another $9-12k. It's easy to fall behind by a year with how the lenders set you up.

A few years ago I decided I was done with credit, especially for large purchases like a car or house. It just seems to me like I'm much better off only buying what I have the money to pay for. No house payment, no car payment, no full coverage insurance, no interest etc. People used to tell me I was stupid for doing it that way.. that I was throwing my money away renting because houses always go up in value. Watching all this forclosure crap going on, and the decline in home values, I'm glad I've done it this way.

Thats the way it should be done. Except buying a home at the right time is a pretty good thing to do for a lot of people. But renting is not always throwing money away.

I think thats a good attitude to have but don't you think it is a little unrealistic in some circumstances? I definitely think having a large down payment is good 20%+ but I don't think most people would be able to buy a house before the age of 60(assuming they were able to save the majority of their income) without some kind of a loan. (unless they made A LOT of money).

But yeah, you're right. With this foreclosure you made the right decision.

You are so clueless. Poor people can't afford pot, which currently sells anywhere from $250-$500/ounce depending on the quality. Meth, crack and cocaine are much cheaper these days.

No, poor people go to the white powders and wash it down with a can of Bud.

You should at least read the newspaper before you open your mouth. It is embarrassing.

The issue is: Who is going to take the blame for giving mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

In my book, it should be the people first in line who wrote the checks out to these people, and that would be the banks. It is absolutely unbelievable that Citi is posting profits when Fannie and Freddie are in the shitter.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2309...s?source=yahoo

The government has been "backing" (doesn't that mean insuring or propping-up?) these privately owned banks for decades, and when the banks got too greedy, were Fannie and Freddie stopping them? No! Why? Because the Presidential Administration at the time turned a blind eye to the entire fiasco.

Time for the banks to buck up and take their losses. The gambled, and they lost. Bush let it happen, and the American people should not suffer because Countrywide, Citibank, et al got too greedy under a blind, or better yet, corrupt administration.

So good for these people for living in the house for free. While I'm driving past these empty houses to volunteer at the homeless shelter, I become very very upset.

Almost as upset as Tech. I just might start using 50pt. bold type.

They need to be interned in one of your fearless Leader's Correctional
Institutions where they can be CORRECTED!

Nothing like forced labor to blow out the cobwebs of stinkin' thinkin'!
If not, then there is always Soylent Green...
Notice I didn't say death squads?








Pot Heads



.

I'm not even going to take the time to figure out what horsesh*t you are posting today Tech.

How's this:

Time for privately held banks to take their losses, move on and stop blaming an Administration that wasn't around when said privately held banks got too greedy.

god damn some of you folks on here have too much time on your hands.

I just don't understand how Tech can make a living when he's constantly posting right-wing crap here.

Anecdotally you're probably right. I certainly haven't managed to save nearly enough to buy a decent house, but when you crunch the numbers, it shouldn't be that impossible. I suppose it varies based on markets, but where I live you can get a modestly nice house for 250k. Not a mansion by any means, but comfortable. Lets say we take an average salary of $60,000 per year

60,000 \ 12 = 5000 (gross wages per month)
estimated withholdings at 1/4 of gross or 1250
5000-1250 = 3750 (net per month)

So lets say we rent an average apartment, have no car payment, no full coverage insurance, and we're very thrifty and smart with our money

Monthly
Rent - 700
Phone - 100
Util - 200
TV - 60
Internet - 40
Car Ins - 75
Food - 250
------------
1425

3750-1425 = 2325 (left over per month)

round down to 2k to accomodate unexpected expenses

2000 * 12 = 24000 (left over per year)

24000 * 10 = 240,000 (after 10 years)

These are not my personal numbers (I do a bit better than this all around), rather just theoretical average numbers for the sake of demonstrating my point. Obviously if one made more money, or had smaller bills, the savings could add up even faster. This also assumes no savings account interest, or investment gains. The way I see it, the average person has a lot more potential money available than they realize, but society has conditioned us to waste it on bullshit like cigarettes, pizza delivery, movies, loan interest, hobbies, alcohol..etc. There's no end to the possibilities when it comes to throwing money away. And this leaves us predisposed to believe that it would take us till we're 60 to save up the money to buy a house outright.

This isn't based on a degree in economics or anything, just on taking an honest look at my own income vs. expenses and coming to the conclusion that I've been an idiot.

I wonder if he receives section-8, welfare, medicaid.

Why are you guys getting all personal like that over propaganda disagreements. Even if it is right wing crap, don't you think "how can he make a living" "I wonder if he receives section 8" is a bit ugly?

Face palm



( can someone post that link that describes how under the Clinton administration banks were given the pass to create this mess? TIA )