dreamdancer 0 #1 March 30, 2009 a lot of homeless children coming up QuoteWhat would you do if someone foreclosed on your home? If suddenly you and all your possessions were out on the street with a bank account depleted from trying to make mammoth mortgage payments, where would you go? An estimated 6 million families could be facing this question in the next three years, with nearly 1 in 10 mortgage holders either delinquent or in foreclosure. And although we've heard a lot about trying to help people stay in their homes -- like President Obama's $275 billion foreclosure-prevention package -- it's been far more difficult to follow what happens to these families once they've been forced out. "We haven't done a good job of tracking those people who were not able to stay in their homes," admits Douglas Robinson of NeighborWorks, an umbrella organization for more than 230 local nonprofits focused on community development. "Over the past four years, we've been heavily focused on foreclosure prevention -- keeping people in their homes. We're just starting to look at the other side of things now." According to Robinson, those victims of foreclosure who do wind up being pushed out of their homes can be roughly divided into two waves. The first wave consists of those who lost their homes because they were unable to keep up with payments on poor mortgages, often with cripplingly high interest rates. There's no hard research as yet, but anecdotal evidence indicates that, although these people didn't have the financial resources to keep up with their mortgage payments, most were able to rent apartments or even homes in their same communities. But for the second wave, the transition hasn't been nearly so seamless. These are the people who are unable to make mortgage payments because they've lost their jobs. They no longer have the incomes to afford rentals. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/134003/foreclosure_crisis_hits_warp_speed%3A_6_million_families_face_losing_their_homes_in_the_next_three_years/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #2 March 30, 2009 So what do you want us to do about it? Pay there mortgage?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baronn 111 #3 March 30, 2009 Certainly a tough situation.That pails in caomparison to the coming Tsunami of failures in the commercial real estate mkt. This where the real leverage is and w/ the failures in retail coming almost weekly. it's going to get a LOT worse before it gets any better. On that happy note, perhaps we can alleviate the shortage of packers. About those child protective laws........ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #4 March 30, 2009 Quote What would you do if someone foreclosed on your home? If suddenly you and all your possessions were out on the street with a bank account depleted from trying to make mammoth mortgage payments, where would you go? This is a good question, and I have a good answer. If someone foreclosed on my home which I lost because I could not afford it, I would live in a rented apartment. And next time I would buy a home I can afford. This is called "reality check". And there are no victims in foreclosure. Let's face it. There are adults who made bad decisions. Nobody _forced_ anyone to buy an overpriced property you knew you cannot afford after the teaser rate expires.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 March 30, 2009 Quote And there are no victims in foreclosure. Let's face it. There are adults who made bad decisions. Nobody _forced_ anyone to buy an overpriced property you knew you cannot afford after the teaser rate expires. Let's not go overboard. Not all foreclosures, this year, or 5 years ago, came from speculators and liar loan applicants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #6 March 30, 2009 Quote Let's not go overboard. Not all foreclosures, this year, or 5 years ago, came from speculators and liar loan applicants. Yes, there were also a lot of people who knowingly signed up for the loans they knew they couldn't afford once the interest rate resets. It doesn't make it different. They were adults who either made bad investment decisions, or they gambled and lost. In both cases they're not victims.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #7 March 30, 2009 That is simply not true. Peoples circumstances change and can change very fast, especially when the markets are in the state that they currently are. Hardly anyone can buy a house without a mortgage, So even with the best judgment in the world, if they loose their job or their business goes bust, they can very easily loose their home. So yes there are victims when houses are repossessed. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #8 March 30, 2009 >Yes, there were also a lot of people who knowingly signed up for the >loans they knew they couldn't afford once the interest rate resets. And there are people who break their backs and can no longer work at their present job, and cannot afford the home on their disability pay. "Everyone who loses their house is an idiot who gambled and lost" is as accurate as any other generalization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 March 30, 2009 QuoteQuote Let's not go overboard. Not all foreclosures, this year, or 5 years ago, came from speculators and liar loan applicants. Yes, there were also a lot of people who knowingly signed up for the loans they knew they couldn't afford once the interest rate resets. No doubt, but that's still not the same as saying all of them were in this boat. Catastrophic illness can destroy the finances of anyone. And not every employee of Bears or Lehmans or Wachovia was responsible or able to foresee the blowup and loss of their jobs. Those in construction certainly have experience with the housing cycle, but this was a pretty deep trough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #10 March 30, 2009 Quote And there are people who break their backs and can no longer work at their present job, and cannot afford the home on their disability pay. True, this happens, and one should plan for that too. Assuming that overall conditions will always be fine is taking the risk. There is always a choice to either take the risk, or mitigate the risk, and there are tools available to mitigate those risks, like getting a good long-term disability insurance. If the one considers not to use them, but take the risk instead - this is fine, but this is a choice made by an adult, not some "unfortunate circumstances". Quote "Everyone who loses their house is an idiot who gambled and lost" is as accurate as any other generalization. This was not what I said. I said that they made bad decisions, and lost. And this doesn't make them victims.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #11 March 30, 2009 Quote No doubt, but that's still not the same as saying all of them were in this boat. Catastrophic illness can destroy the finances of anyone. And not every employee of Bears or Lehmans or Wachovia was responsible or able to foresee the blowup and loss of their jobs. Those in construction certainly have experience with the housing cycle, but this was a pretty deep trough. Nothing of what you mention could ever be considered "unforeseen circumstances". Catastrophic illness is something everyone could get, and is one of the reasons people maintain good health insurance coverage. Employment is generally not guaranteed, and massive layoffs tend to happen exactly at the moments where a lot of people is also looking for a job. Those are typical risks which could be easily (but not necessary cheap) mitigated.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #12 March 30, 2009 QuoteNothing of what you mention could ever be considered "unforeseen circumstances". Catastrophic illness is something everyone could get, and is one of the reasons people maintain good health insurance coverage. Employment is generally not guaranteed, and massive layoffs tend to happen exactly at the moments where a lot of people is also looking for a job. Those are typical risks which could be easily (but not necessary cheap) mitigated. now that you've given the parents a good telling off (a very moral and upright soapbox you have there) what should we do with the children?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #13 March 30, 2009 >this is fine, but this is a choice made by an adult, not some >"unfortunate circumstances". An injury caused by a drunk driver, resulting in a homeowner being unable to work, is indeed an 'unfortunate circumstance.' >I said that they made bad decisions, and lost. And this doesn't >make them victims. Like I said, that generalization is about as useful as any other (i.e. not at all, as a rule.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 March 30, 2009 Quote Those are typical risks which could be easily (but not necessary cheap) mitigated. Same is true for most fatal accidents in skydiving, yet they still happen at a rate close to 1 in 1000 for us, EVERY YEAR. So long as there is company failures, accidents and cancers, and divorces, there will be financial failures leading to foreclosure. Even with health insurance, 6 months of emergency cash (I know a majority of Americans lack this), and a pretty wife. I feel something for these people. In the dot bomb, I didn't work for 17 months. In this current environment, some are going to experience something similar. Moreover, if we really stopped all Americans from taking reasonable risks like buying a home (or starting a business), then this recession will be long lasting. People taking risk is a bit part of the reasons for our competitive advantage in the world. So you want to shut down the indefensible speculation without harming that spirit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #15 March 31, 2009 Quote An injury caused by a drunk driver, resulting in a homeowner being unable to work, is indeed an 'unfortunate circumstance.' This _might_ be such a circumstance (although good long-term disability policy could might prevent it), but I doubt the number of such people is statistically significant in those 6 million families. Quote Like I said, that generalization is about as useful as any other (i.e. not at all, as a rule.) There is always context which makes any generalizations useless (including this one). This, however, doesn't mean they are useless.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #16 March 31, 2009 Quote Same is true for most fatal accidents in skydiving, yet they still happen at a rate close to 1 in 1000 for us, EVERY YEAR. Yes, they do. The fact that risks could be mitigated doesn't mean that everyone will do it. A classic example is wing loading. Quote So long as there is company failures, accidents and cancers, and divorces, there will be financial failures leading to foreclosure. Even with health insurance, 6 months of emergency cash (I know a majority of Americans lack this), and a pretty wife. Those are still risks you're talking about. You could still mitigate some of them by getting cheaper housing (for example if your housing payment is $100/month, you would not be at risk in most scenarios described above). Same as with higher wing loading, you could assume bad events won't happen, and if they do happen, you'll have other means to work around. What if you weren't able to? Are you still a victim of unfortunate circumstances? As a side note, I would consider 6 months of emergency cash an absolute minimum, and wouldn't be comfortable with anything less than a year :) Quote I feel something for these people. In the dot bomb, I didn't work for 17 months. In this current environment, some are going to experience something similar. I feel for those people too. The question is, what you suggest we should do?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #17 March 31, 2009 Quote now that you've given the parents a good telling off (a very moral and upright soapbox you have there) what should we do with the children? Well, the solution is obvious. We should tax the rich extra 50%, and use the money to pay off their mortgages. Minorities first, of course.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 March 31, 2009 $100 mortgage? (Or rent for that matter). You live in the Bay Area, but you know that even in Idaho that's not going to happen. Wingloading in 2006 is probably like real estate flippers that are going under the past year or so. Obviously reckless, often done by people who were entirely too inexperienced to even consider it. (and later, we found those who did know better still fell to it). But those accidents have fallen off, and now we have more landing accidents by people just making mistakes. Error will never be eliminated. Same applies to financial behavior. There are little errors, and big errors. And non errors - like when someone gets taken out by another person engaging in bad landing patterns. You can only defend yourself to a degree, and then you're SOL. I'm all for denying any federal benefits to those who were reckless. Not so for the smaller portion that weren't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #19 March 31, 2009 Quote I'm all for denying any federal benefits to those who were reckless. Not so for the smaller portion that weren't. A big problem here is how to define "reckless"? You just said that majority of people do not have emergency cash even for six months. For me this would be insanely reckless to buy a house with less than six months of future payments in emergency fund, but it seems to be not rare. Would we consider reckless anyone who bought with more than 32% debt-to-income ratio? Non-conforming loans? There are a lot of variables, and as soon as you're giving benefits to some people, you could easily end up giving them to anyone* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #20 March 31, 2009 Quote "Everyone who loses their house is an idiot who gambled and lost" is as accurate as any other generalization. No everyone who loses their house is not an idiot, but they were a gambler. See, anyone who signs up for a 30 year mortgage is assuming they will be employed for 30 years. So if they lose their house because they can't fulfill that assumption, I believe they have gambled and lost. Does that mean other taxpayers should bail them out more now than all those other "gamblers" over the past 50 years? __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #21 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuote "Everyone who loses their house is an idiot who gambled and lost" is as accurate as any other generalization. No everyone who loses their house is not an idiot, but they were a gambler. See, anyone who signs up for a 30 year mortgage is assuming they will be employed for 30 years. 30 year mortgage payments + taxes + HOA fees on my first home were low enough to be covered by unemployment insurance, if I became disabled and my current insurance was paid for with pre-tax dollars I'd still be spending under 36% of my income on debt service, and I had space for two room mates who'd have cut that by a factor of 3 which would be less than I'd spend on a studio apartment. The payments were low enough that when I didn't receive a paycheck for six months I had enough money saved that it was an annoyance not a real issue. When I bought the place my costs were about the same as if I rented it and the town had about a 2% vacancy rate so if I had to move to get work and couldn't sell it I'd probably be able to rent it. Continuous employment only becomes an issue when property values get too out of line with the rest of the economy and/or middle class people end up living hand to mouth. Having a property as an anchor only becomes an issue when prices get out of line with rents. While technically a gamble, me buying that property was pretty safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #22 March 31, 2009 Quote Quote now that you've given the parents a good telling off (a very moral and upright soapbox you have there) what should we do with the children? Well, the solution is obvious. We should tax the rich extra 50%, and use the money to pay off their mortgages. Minorities first, of course. good bit of 'whistling' there mate (now you've got the image of black and brown (but not blue eyed) children in everybodies heads are you going to answer the question)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #23 March 31, 2009 QuoteAs the nation’s economic and housing crisis worsens, homelessness is also on the rise. A report from the National Center for Family Homelessness estimates that one in fifty American children are now homeless. With the number of homeless people far exceeding the existing network of shelters, an increasing number of people are setting up roving encampments or shanty towns that are popularly known as tent cities. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/134218/nickelsville%3A_seattle%27s_homeless_name_new_tent_city_after_city%27s_mayor/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #24 March 31, 2009 I do not understand your point. You just keeping posting information from various sources, some of which have questionable credibility. You haven't said what exactly you think should be done, and how we should proceed. So do you have a plan or opinion what should be done, or you're just going to repeat the "could someone think of children" mantra?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #25 March 31, 2009 why did you mention 'minorities' (as to what should be done - a national health service would be a good idea you could pay for it with ... drumroll... national insurance stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
