Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFacing Foreclosure? Don't Leave. Squat
Marcy Kaptur of Ohio is the longest-serving Democratic congresswoman in U.S. history. Her district, stretching along the shore of Lake Erie from west of Cleveland to Toledo, faces an epidemic of home foreclosures and 11.5 percent unemployment. That heartland region, the Rust Belt, had its heart torn out by the North American Free Trade Agreement, with shuttered factories and struggling family farms. Kaptur led the fight in Congress against NAFTA. Now, she is recommending a radical foreclosure solution from the floor of the U.S. Congress: "So I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave."
She criticizes the bailout's failure to protect homeowners facing foreclosure. Her advice to "squat" cleverly exploits a legal technicality within the subprime-mortgage crisis. These mortgages were made, then bundled into securities and sold and resold repeatedly, by the very Wall Street banks that are now benefiting from TARP (the Troubled Asset Relief Program). The banks foreclosing on families very often can't locate the actual loan note that binds the homeowner to the bad loan. "Produce the note," Kaptur recommends those facing foreclosure demands of the banks.
"[P]ossession is nine-tenths of the law," Rep. Kaptur told me. "Therefore, stay in your property. Get proper legal representation ... [if] Wall Street cannot produce the deed nor the mortgage audit trail ... you should stay in your home. It is your castle. It's more than a piece of property. ... Most people don't even think about getting representation, because they get a piece of paper from the bank, and they go, 'Oh, it's the bank,' and they become fearful, rather than saying: 'This is contract law. The mortgage is a contract. I am one party. There is another party. What are my legal rights under the law as a property owner?' "If you look at the bad paper, if you look at where there's trouble, 95 to 98 percent of the paper really has moved to five institutions: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wachovia, Citigroup and HSBC. They have this country held by the neck."
Kaptur recommends calling the local Legal Aid Society, Bar Association or 888-995-4673 for legal assistance.
The onerous duty of physically evicting people and dragging their possessions to the curb typically falls on the local sheriff. Kaptur conditions her squatting advice, saying, "If it's a sheriff's eviction, if it's reached that point, that is almost impossible." Unless the sheriff refuses to carry out the eviction, as Sheriff Warren C. Evans of Wayne County, Mich., has decided to do. Wayne County, including Detroit, has had more than 46,000 foreclosures in the past two years.
After reviewing TARP, Evans determined that home foreclosures would conflict with TARP's goal of reducing foreclosures, and that he'd be violating the law by denying foreclosed homeowners the chance at potential federal assistance. "I cannot in clear conscience allow one more family to be put out of their home until I am satisfied they have been afforded every option they are entitled to under the law to avoid foreclosure," he said.
Bruce Marks of the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America is taking the fight to the homes of the banks' CEOs. Last October, as the TARP bailout was shaping up to benefit Wall Street and not Main Street, NACA blockaded the entrance of mortgage giant Fannie Mae until it got a meeting with executives there. Now NACA is working with Fannie Mae to restructure mortgages. Marks is organizing a nationwide, three-day "Predator's Tour," going to the CEOs' homes to demand meetings with them. He told me: "This is what we're going to do with thousands of homeowners, go to their (the CEOs') home and say: 'I want you to meet my family. I want you to see who you're foreclosing on.' ... If they're going to take our homes, we're going to go to their homes, and we're going to tell them, 'No more.' "
Before the inauguration, Larry Summers, the chair of President Obama's National Economic Council, promised congressional Democratic leaders to "implement smart, aggressive policies to reduce the number of preventable foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for economically stressed but responsible homeowners, while also reforming our bankruptcy laws and strengthening existing housing initiatives."
According to a report by RealtyTrac, "Foreclosure filings were reported on 2.3 million U.S. properties in 2008, an increase of 81 percent from 2007 and up 225 percent from 2006." As the financial crisis deepens, people facing foreclosure should take Kaptur's advice and tell their bankers, "Produce the note."
132 Comments so far
Show AllApologies you all.
I misspelled "sheriff."
Meanwhile, which do you want, the British system of quotes or the Franklin/Adams System and the US Bureau of Standards?
The apostrophe is worthy of a book, but please, not here. Not now!
-30-
To ibnaswad and then others---
The posting on the nature of Riba here is the most interesting I have seen on CD and most other places in a very long time. I heard a few years ago that in the Muslim banking system they do not employ the scourge, "interest." Well, I asked, then how do they obtain a decent return on their "investment" on the future? I admit that I never further researched this because I was busy following the depradations of the Bush Administration and trying to keep my house in order. There is very very little in the American MSM about the Muslim banking system if it can be called that. It does seem to be far more people-oriented, and traditionally so, than what we might dare to call "ours," which is in a horrible horrible mess. Decades ago on a Mahattan street I bought a copy of the Q'ran that was lying on a rug on the sidewalk. I actually read the whole thing. I am certain that it was a horrible translation.
Which goes to others on this thread... Would you please take your personal squabbles to some secondary level if you are not contributing to a discussion of the article ostensibly at issue here. This is a GREAT article by Amy Goodman on US Ohio Rep Marcy Kaptor and deserves serious discussion, not personal diversion. A few weeks ago, for example, I had a customer in the shop who is a retired business professor and I said to him something like, "you know, the problem here is that the banksters can't find their paper. It's been sliced and diced so much that they can't find it. Show me the paper!" He agreed, and he is a "true" "conservative," unlike the neocons who have a different agenda.
Doing the SQUAT is probably exactly the right thing to do (the self-promoting lawyer above notwithstanding). It is not illegal to recommend a self-preserving action. In addition, "Necessity knows no Law."
Billions in the world do not have toilets. They squat. Imagine peace.
Squat. The System ain't worth SQUAT. It is kaput. They greeded themselves to death and we are ALL in denial because we have yet to see the implications but we know they are there. The System is KAPUT. FACHACT. The Reagan Dream of the City on the Hill---dominating the rest of the World---FICTION. One huge problem is the Total Disconnect between how we lead our daily lives and how Wall Street denizens lead theirs. When I was much younger I worked on Wall Street and I tried to display the threats that credit cards could pose. Credit, credit, credit... Based on WHAT? Promise to pay when we all know you ain't got no money, Honey? Such is the American Economy. Reagan said, 'the government is not the answer. The government is the problem.' But in general Reagan did not seek to SUBVERT our government. George Bush upped the ante and subverted our government, at all levels. George Bush intentionally broke the United States of America. What can be done?
***
To Sioux Rose---
I am a typesetter and a proofreader and systems administrator for a small copy shop in SW Ohio, and am well aware of the apostrophe issue you raise. Nevertheless---and this is my first criticism of you(!)---this was not the article to post to initiate any diatribe on grammar. Amy is making a very very serious point here, as is Rep. Kaptor. There is a long long history of "squatting" in America. There is also a long history on foreclosure sales in the swath of the American Midwest from Texas to the northern tier states when during the foreclosures of the Great Depression neighbors would show up and nobody would bid, and the poor bastard could make the only bid and buy back his farm.
Time to relearn those old Woodie Guthrie songs. Aint got a nickel, aint got a dime, all I can do is think about time. And, No he didn't say that; I did.
We are in the worst crisis of our lives. We need to pay attention to what is important, right now and into the Future.
Time to squat. There is probably not now a county sherrif in the United States WHO does not have a Family Member facing foreclosure and/or being "underwater" on a mortgage. Time to go local. Amy and Kaptur have hit the nail on the head here.
Show me the paper. Show us all the paper. What the hell did you do to my mortgage? Let's read the FINE PRINT, together. We never did, before! Oh and by the way, who the hell wrote that fine print... Robert Rubin? Larry Summers? Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg?
Organize to buy back your farm.
-30-
Could Shariah complaint financing work in the West?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202740_pf.html
A Higher Law for Lending
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; D01
The mortgage industry may be in meltdown, but at least one class of lender appears to be flourishing: Islamic finance companies that offer Muslim home buyers alternative arrangements such as lease-to-own deals so they can avoid making the sort of interest payments that many believe their religion forbids.
Officials at Guidance Residential, a Reston company that has financed more than 5,000 home purchases since it began in 2002, said the company is having its best year yet, with business up 7 percent in the first quarter of 2008 from the first quarter of 2007.
At University Islamic Financial, which began in Ann Arbor, Mich., and expanded its operations to Maryland, Virginia and five other states last year, officials said the number of home-financing applications quadrupled from last March to this March..."Folks have to be questioning the methods used by conventional mortgage companies over the last three or four years based on what's happening today," said Hussam A. Qutub, a spokesman for Guidance. "...Let me give it a look and educate myself about it to see if it could perhaps be more beneficial to me.' "
That was the prevailing sentiment among potential customers who approached an advertising booth staffed by Guidance representatives at the annual spring fair held by the All Dulles Area Muslim Society in Sterling on a recent weekend...Mounir Elhaj, 45, a native of Sudan who works at a moving company, wanted to know how Guidance deals with customers who fall behind on their payments. He said he recently helped move a woman whose house was foreclosed on after she missed payments..."She had been paying her mortgage for 17 years, and the bank still took her house," Elhaj said to the Guidance sales representative. "So I want to know if I bought a house and then fail to pay, can you help me?"
The representative, Amr Mohamed, smiled magnanimously. "Yes, we can," he said, adding that Islamic law, known as sharia, forbids businesses from profiting from a customer's financial hardship. So if a customer is late on payments, Guidance charges him or her a flat administrative fee to cover processing costs but none of the percentage-based penalties and additional fees that conventional mortgage companies can pile on.
Islamic home financing aims to offer Muslim buyers the same opportunities as conventional lenders but with a twist that gets around sharia's prohibition against the payment of riba. Generally defined as excessive gain, riba has over the years come to be considered the equivalent of making money by renting money -- in other words, charging interest -- because the borrower shoulders risk while the lender is guaranteed a return.
In one of the alternative arrangements...the company buys the house, then sells it to the home buyer in fixed monthly installments at an agreed-upon marked-up price. The markup rate is kept competitive with the prevailing interest rate on a conventional mortgage. So apart from a few additional transaction costs from the atypical nature of the arrangement, the buyer's monthly payment is roughly equivalent to what it would be with a conventional mortgage.
A second option is for the financier and the home buyer to enter a lease-to-own contract similar to those used to buy cars. Once again, the rental portion of the monthly payment is kept equivalent to prevailing interest payments. The third model, which is favored by Guidance, is also based on a lease-to-own arrangement, except that the buyer and the finance company form a limited-liability entity to own shares of the property.
All three arrangements got a major boost in 2001 when Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying them on the secondary market, ultimately including not just Guidance and University Islamic, but also Devon Bank in Chicago and American Finance House Lariba of Pasadena, Calif. Last year, Freddie Mac bought more than $250 million in Islamic home loans -- a tiny fraction of the corporation's $1.77 trillion business but nonetheless a slight increase over previous years, according to spokesman Brad German.
While Islamic finance companies have convened boards of prominent scholars to certify that their finance arrangements comply with sharia, not all Muslim thinkers are convinced that they are necessary.
Mahmoud Amin el-Gamal, an economics professor at Rice University specializing in Islamic finance, noted that even in Muslim countries, sharia-based financing was developed in only the past several decades. And he argued that because conventional mortgages are secured by a physical good, namely the home, that is usually the only asset the lender can repossess if the borrower fails to repay, such loans should not be considered the equivalent of making money by renting money.
In any case, el-Gamal maintained, Islamic home-finance products are so closely modeled on conventional mortgages as to constitute a distinction without a difference.
"This is an industry that preys on people's religious insecurities by selling them a product that they claim is different when it's not. It's false advertising, and it's a case of supply creating demand," El-Gamal said....
"I wish I could avoid everything that Islam doesn't allow, but I can't," said Dirir, 32. "So if I have the opportunity and the choice to avoid interest, then it's very important to me not to mess with it."...
Great post OleManRiver. I think you took Amy's point and drove it a little deeper, and I thank you for that. It's like it is time to get back to self, back to such simple basics. Where have we all been, where have I been? I rely on reading here to help me stay focused, thank you again, you added to that crucial focus.
Again this idea of things on paper being what is important instead of the things on paper only serving to symbolize what is important is coming up for me.
George Bush was the one who acknowledged the frailty of something that is just on paper. I think our sense of life, self and purpose needs to get back into our heads and hearts, and then we need to live it and if papers need to be written about that truth, then fine.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
The root of the problem is out-and-out "pure D" greed. We've all been warned though and there is ultimately a solution. Read and contemplate: (riba=Usury)
“ That they took riba, though they were forbidden and that they devoured men’s substance wrongfully – We have prepared for those among men who reject faith a grievous punishment (Qur'an 4:161) ”
“ Those who charge riba are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that riba is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits riba. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from riba, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in riba, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever (Qur'an 2:275) ”
“ God condemns riba, and blesses charities. God dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. Lo! those who believe and do good works and establish worship and pay the poor-due, their reward is with their Lord and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all kinds of riba, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew. (Qur'an 2:276-280) ”
“ O you who believe, you shall not take riba, compounded over and over. Observe God, that you may succeed. (Qur'an 3:130) ”
“ And for practicing riba, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution. (Qur'an 4:161) ”
The interpretation of riba varies among different scholars of Islamic law and jurisprudence. The popular view in modern Islamic banking and Islamic economic jurisprudence is that the concept of interest itself is riba and is therefore unlawful.
The definition of riba in classical Islamic jurisprudence was "surplus value without counterpart." When "currencies of base metal were first introduced in the Islamic world, no jurist ever thought that paying a debt in a higher number of units of this fiat money was riba" as they were concerned with the real value of money (determined by weight only) rather than its numerical value. For example, it was acceptable for a loan of 1000 gold dinars to be paid back as 1050 dinars of equal aggregate weight of gold (i.e., the value in terms of weight had to be same because all makes of coins did not carry exactly similar weight) - therefore having the same real value. The rationale behind riba according to classical Islamic jurists was "to ensure equivalency in real value" and that the "numerical value was immaterial (or it was not of any concern at that time)."[32] The common denominator between the classical view, and the modern view, is that paying money back at a higher real value than the original loan is riba, if not any numerical value above the original amount. This would still rule out modern loan interest rates in both opinions so has given birth to the modern Islamic banking and Islamic economic jurisprudence.
Islamic Shariah considers Riba as tool of oppression and a means to unjustly take others money[6] by exploiting their needs and circumstances. Hence it forbids a Riba based system altogether and it promotes Charity as an alternative. Therefore, Mohammad said: “God has judged that there shall be no riba” [Last Sermon].
Islamic Shariah also consider Riba as a medium for hoarding money by elite and powerful, and it warns against those who accumulate wealth with this unjust way. Alternatively, Islam on one hand distributes wealth by implementation of Charity, Zakat and Laws of Inheritance, and on other hand, vigorously encourages spending of money to help the needy.
The crimes of dealing in Riba are so serious that God has declared war against those who deal in Riba[7]. Mohammad has cursed anyone who deals with Riba, the one who takes it, one who pays it and one who records it, they are all “equal”[8].
Muslims around the world traditionally avoid eating pork and alcohol, whereas, Riba is considered much worse than that. Mohammad declared consumption of Riba worse than adultery: worse than “to a man committing adultery with his own mother
This is a fascinating post ibnaswad. This system of economics that the Islamic people favor sounds like it is closer to democracy than anything we have come up with over here. I also think that Jesus gave a message along these lines and it perhaps went even further.
It is interesting because I think the simple saying of what goes around comes around fits into the context of what is presented here. If a person is usury, eventually nature and God catches up to them and the weight of usury with that person marks them for failure.
It seems like these simple laws that even a child could understand are ones that those who have been usury in our country try to deny.
It seems like a greater spiritual law regarding happiness and security is also denied in the process.
I think that like Israel there is a threat with the usury to others that if we try to take them down from their position of abusing power, they will take everyone with them, the ultimate in usury.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Banks and lenders took advantage of the fact that we are a nation of idiots and dummies that can't comprehend a legal contract and don't have enough common sense to have someone look it over. Next time use your heads.
Nobody had a gun to buyers heads at the closing table. Most people would not be in this situation if they had hired a real estate attn. to go over the contract, but people would rather have had an updated kitchen package than spend the fee for legal advise. Telling people to "squat"is illegal. No wonders so many now feel as though they are entitled to keep what they have not paid for.
Marsha1957 February 5th, 2009 12:06 pm
"Telling people to 'squat' is illegal."
Yea, and what reckless nerve for Kaptur to say it on the floor of Congress, to Republican lawmakers, half of them lawyers. Must be behind bars by now.
Learn to read, twerp.
Remember that "two by four" that McCaskill was hinting at abramawicz? She said these people are "idiots".
What is Senator McCaskill getting that some are not? Is it love, wisdom, intelligence, mercy, hope, a desire for change?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
How ironic for you to say that...I have a law degree and help people here in my town who truly need representation. But urging people to commit a wrong and using the irresponsible actions of corporations as a justification is not the right move.
"No wonders so many now feel as though they are entitled to keep what they have not paid for."
Yeah I feel the same way about these Wall Street thugs who feel that they are entitled to keep their (US taxpayer backed) bonuses for running the economy into the ditch.
As within the White House, so without the world?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
I think the main underlying issues here are that our economy has passed the point where we produce less food & manufactured goods than others "earn" in the financial & commercial sector (insurance, real estate, banking, advertising, etc)...
This problem is compounded by the usury of the Fed & banks, and a yearly half trillion$ trade deficit with China...
The wealth that built this country was exploited from the natives, African slaves, immigrant wage slaves, and a continent of "free" natural resources... We've spent the last sixty four years using our military muscle and CIA network to exploit the human labor and natural resources of the global south...
Now that the Uber rich have run out of things to steal for a profit, they cashed in before the wall st ponzi scheme crashed down...
How do you steal trillions? By creating a $500 trillion bubble of worthless derivatives & securities, then "trade" em to the unsuspecting pension plans and mutual funds around the world... No one will be able to unbundle the mess, and multiple rounds of bailouts will only serve to consoidate the bankster's market share as they leverage out the smaller banks & competition...
They have no intention to share any of their ill-gotten goods with the people they stole it from... They would rather build a police state
Yep, the last time I checked our government reports we were at 80% service industry and the other 20% made up by farming and forestry predominantly. When I read the book "The Coming Conflict with China" the main point that stuck in my head was that they produced everything for themselves. The numbers seemed to show that they only imported about 20% of their needs and exported about 80% of ours. As I recall that was called the trade deficit and it did not bode well for us, well that book came out over ten years ago or so. The writing has been on the wall. Oh wretched luck.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
theinitiate
Wow!Now that is action. tell them to produce the note, stay in your home, go to their homes. This is fighting back par excellence. Imagine if the foreclosures worsen even more and people decide to try these methods. This could be the straw that breaks the camels back-the bankers' backs. THIS WOULD BE THE BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION!!!!!! YEAH!!
Every day, every week,every month, we hold our breath for the next piece of news that points to the obvious- we are continuing to swirl down the bowl of the capitalist toilet...
Yep, stay put and wait for the sheriff. He has so much to do it may be a long time before he gets around to your house. And by then, maybe our stupid "lawmakers" will have figured out a way to let people stay.
So what will happen if you stay? Not much, really, you'll must be commanded out. Be sure all your valuables have been moved to a safe place. Live with the minimal you need as you may have to leave in a hurry.
In the meantime, keep the place tidy, mow the lawn and be joyful for the roof... it could be worse, after all. You could live in
Gaza where your house is just mowed down with all your stuff in it.
At least here they're not going to mow down your house. And do demand to see the original mortgage documents. Do talk to a lawyer.
You are a sensible man. And by the way, Marcy Kaptur rocks.
Joe
Has anyone read the book "Web of Debt - The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free" by Ellen Hodgson Brown? Although I knew about the Fed (Ron Paul has talked about it) and the money supply, this book goes into so much detail and even some of the historical events are explained from a different angle. I can't say I agree 100% - however, the reason I mention this here is I just read some comments that seem to blame the borrower for knowingly taking on the mortgage. It's true, the borrower is responsible. But the whole deal would have been far more affordable and the economy itself would be different if the bankers actually had the money before they lent it - according to this book, the money that is lent to borrowers is created pretty much out of thin air - whereas when someone defaults on a loan, what is repossessed is not thin air, but concrete property. One more item that NEVER gets talked about on the mainstream media.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Squat, invite your friends who have lost houses or who just want a place to live...the more people refuse to comply with the robber banks, the better.
There is a Law In England from the 1700 or so that allows people to Squat legally in abandoned homes as long as they fix them up , too bad the USA doesnt have this law. Thanks Amy for once again letting the hundreds of us to hear and see the truth. What a mess the PNAC neocons have left us in.
Anyone know what became of Amy's St. Paul case?
The proper attitude toward a mortgage is that the interest is your rent and the principal you pay each month is the investment in real estate.
The argument that you pay $400,000 for a $100,000 dollar house is a weak argument. Unless you can live rent free somewhere, like your mommies basement, you will pay rent.
Mortgages should have very conservative financial standards to qualify and much lower interest rates. Banks pay 1% or less on deposits now so the mortgage rate should be more like 4 %.
Housing is too important to allow goofy speculation to screw with the people.
In other countries there are strict laws that prevent banks from loaning more than a person could reasonably afford to pay. Duh.
Joe
"The argument that you pay $400,000 for a $100,000 dollar house is a weak argument. Unless you can live rent free somewhere, like your mommies basement, you will pay rent."
Thanks for pointing that out. There is also Time Value of Money. Getting the $100,000 up front is deemed worth the interest for many people buying houses. If not, they should look for some other solution.
Paul Siemering
Great story. Thanks Amy, thanks Marcy, and indeed it could be the beginning of the revolution- the people must take back what the unholy alliance of capital and government have been stealing.
The earthquake has begun... shake it Pachamama!!
We really do need to be fearless and faithful to what it means to be a human being and critter within the creation.
I had this image of the phrase "...has this country by the throat..." the Mortage system with a muscular grip on the neck of a USA critter... morphing into a mirror image of the gripper.
In the ancient Mayan greeting... In Lakhe ... I am another yourself.
In Lakhe. I love this greeting.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Just want to add my kudos to Ms. Kaptur for a great and gutsy suggestion. When the hell was the last time a politician took a principled stance?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
I think this division of principles from politics happened when politicians imagined themselves to be the leaders of the people and not the servers of the people.
But then the people had to get this one confused too.
Our relationship to our representatives was turned on it's head.
Looks like the 'catastrophe' President Obama feared is upon us. Literally to turn something over and we are all going to get a chance to get into correct relationship.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
I believe, as you intimate, that we are on the verge of something that will forever alter the relationship between ourselves and our elected officials. Whether or not this will be change for the better is a question I cannot yet answer.
The real pity is that the American people have had ample warning and much time to make changes peacefully and via the ballot box. Mobs of hungry and desperate folks in the street is not a political vehicle for change envisioned by our founders I would imagine.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Too many inflated mortgages. Too many out-of-work borrowers. Too many 3000+ SF single-family homes. I see a future of American families sharing homes, with the benefits of reduced mortgage debt and tighter knit communities.
I like your future vision, I think I'll adopt it if you don't mind.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
I'm with Sioux Rose on this one, beside the others. Letting the language go to hell isn't going to help anyone or anything. Language is how we think, if we do, so it's important that it be correct. There are plenty of other ways to come to erroneous conclusions.
Gorsegrower
Has anyone had the time to go back and research which institutions paid for the lobbying efforts that resulted in the restructuring of the bankruptcy law several years ago?
But I could be wrong !
Curmudgeon: Check out opensecrets.org
I never thought I'd be saying this about a US congresscritter, but Kaptur's strategy is brilliant. The last thing these pin-striped muggers want is a paper trail leading back to them.
This is true. They claim they can no longer trace what happened to the debt paper, so who now has the rights to the house? You cannot have it both ways.
Joe
The bank is bluffing. They don't want your house. Make it as difficult for them as possible.
Thank you Marcy Kaptur you gutsy lady for standing up to these fiendish banksters.
Mortgages are a bank rip off anyway. Amortization works against a "homeowner". That is why over the course of a mortgage, you will pay $400,000 for a $100,000 house! On top of that, if you payed a down payment, you lose that money too. Using my own mortgage as an example, I have a 5.5% loan, originally on $140,000 dollar balance. I have been in my home for 8 years. My monthly mortgage payment is around $800/month, of which only about $250 (now, after 8 yrs.) of it goes to principal. The rest goes to interest, pure profit for the bank. In eight years, I have paid $76000 to the bank, but only $15000 has gone to principal. I still "owe" $125000 to the bank. That means the bank has made $61,000 profit.
On top of that, I have to pay a monthly PMI (mortgage insurance, for the banks, not me). So if I default on the loan, the insurance company is supposed to pay the bank for that.
I know this is basic stuff, but if I stop paying my mortgage, I am the one who loses, not the bank, they have made $61,000 profit already, get the house and get insurance $$ for it too. For the record, I am not late or looking at forclosure, or underwater on my mortgage (yet)and bought a house I could afford, not a McMansion. I drive a 15 yr old car, no luxuries like fancy clothes, tvs, dinners out, no vacations in over three years or anything like that. I am piss poor and have no health insurance for two years (couldn't make the $500/mo payments that started out as $200/mo and pay the mortgage too.)even though I earn a good amount of money (I am self employed, so I get whomped on taxes, they don't like people who aren't wage slaves and you pay for it).
So, WTF? Even if someone is behind in their mortgage, the bank has made a HUGE profit. There is NO reason they can't refinance the mortgages at a better rate and at a lower amount if the house is "underwater". I think not only should people be squatting, but they should be defending their right to stay in their homes BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
BTW, the arson rash in PA, are these "homeowners" who would torch their place rather than let the bank have it? You know what happens if people try to resist, they send your local sherriff to evict you for the banksters. That is why so many people are blowing their heads off or making a "Custer's Last Stand" with the local authorities. This country is sick.
Yes and the banks can only profit as long as the foreclosures do not get to high as they are now. At this point as this vicious cycle continues no bank will profit and they know it.
The big picture is that the pinch is on for all at this point and it has gotten to large to stop through the old tried and true measures. Times changed without us and we have to catch up and fast. This article is a poignant reminder of that fact. Realize your rights and squat on them!!!!!!!!
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Ask these two questions, did you request the loan from the bank or did they force you to take the money? And if you were in the lending businees would you expect an interest payment on your loan or would you give it for nothing. Your logic is just plain rediculous, as is the whole premise of the article. Think of how lucky you were,5.5% is very cheap money , if you had bought a home in the wonderful years of Jimmy Carter, the numbers would look much worse.
Did you read his comment,I think not,you are so concerned with taking him to task you missed his point. I had a mortgage in 1981 during the Reagan Administration. The interest rate was 17and 3/4%, yes 17and 3/4%. The rate was exorbitant, but the prices of houses was much lower because there wasn't the speculative mortgage bundling and such that caused the bubble that has burst. Even the housing market was poor back then I still was able to sell my house when I lost my job.
I surely did read his post and the article that he was commenting on. And since Reagan had just taken office in 1981 you had a "Carter mortgage" not a Reagan one, that is not a fair comparison. By the end of the Reagan administration the rates were much lower. And it was not speculative mortgage bundling that led to the housing bubble, that was created by the policies of the Clinton administration to make it easier for people to get mortgages. People who in the past had not qualified, so they mandated that banks and Fannie Mae lower the lending standards to open the mortgage markets to a broader population base. Noble ideas for sure but fiscally irresponsible. Those policies led to the glut of sub-prime loans in the system which eventually led to the bubble bursting. Wall Street and the banks and eventually the Republicans went along for the ride, everyone was raking in the cash. The gentleman who posted also did not complete the financial picture, he speaks of the money he has paid but doen not include the tax breaks he has received on the interest he has paid. And he does not take into consideration the appreciation of the real estate over the 8 year period. Since he was required to purchase PMI that means he had a low down payment, so he was able to buy a home because the bank loaned him the money and now he decides it is a rip off. 8 years ago he had nothing but a small down payment, now he owns a home that is worth $175,000 ( a conservative guess) or maybe even more. So now he has equity of $50000 plus the tax savings every year. That sounds like a good deal not a rip off. And by the way, I am in poor shape myself right now so I am not unsimpathetic to his predicament, but blaming the mortage system is not legitimate.
re: clinton administration 'policies for poor people' created the subprime crisis?
Rick.ruskin February 6th, 2009 12:27 am
"policies of the Clinton administration" mandating loans to poor people "led to the glut of sub-prime loans"?
Right wing lie, debunked again and again:
Editorials in the L.A. Times (10/25/08) and in the New York Times (10/15/08) dismissed the charges surrounding the CRA as inaccurate; as the NYT pointed out, CRA rules apply to banks, not to the private, unregulated mortgage lenders that made the vast majority of subprime loans during the boom. And the L.A. Times noted that the CRA was not the source of the mortgage products blamed for defaults:
The last things anyone wanted from the CRA were the exotic mortgages that have failed at alarming rates, including "liar loans" and "negative amortization" mortgages whose low payments pushed borrowers deeper into debt. So why did those types of loans and other questionable practices proliferate? Because they generated higher returns for lenders and investors.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/14-6
January 14, 2009, Extra! Magazine
"Scapegoating Minorities for Failures of Banking"
The CRA was created in the Carter years as you know, I was not pointing to it nor did I even mention it. And I hardly think that the once proud NY Times should be quoted as an authority on anything, they have lost all credibility with any fairminded person. As I former NYer it is sad to watch this paper deteriorate further and further, I suspect they will be bankrupt before too long. I was pointing to the hijacking of Fannie and Freddie and the appointment of loyal democrats like Raines to take over the reins of the company. It was a political payback to a loyal democrat, now it was his turn to get rich. One of the things that was done was to change the way compensation was calculated at FNM. No longer would profitability be the measurement, now it would be the dollar value of the loans they were insuring. It was a great way for Rains and his buddies to get rich and the banks and other lenders loved it too. Why worry, lend the money, Fannie will buy it. Lets get creative, FNM will buy it. The problem was not with loans to less affluent people, it was the climate that was created by cheap and easy to obtain loans. Suddenly everyone was a "house flipper", just like everyone was a expert stock picker before the NASDAQ crashed. Bush tried to reregulate FNM immediately upon taking office, he failed. The Dems steadfastly opposed any changes and enough Reps went along to defeat any effort to reregulate FNM. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were adamant in their defense of FNM policies and remained so until late 2008. When John McCain cosponsored a bill to reregulate FNM Chris Dodd killed it in commitee and would not allow it to come to a vote. During this whole process Wall St joined in by creating their Credit Default Swaps to ease the concerns of investors. Alan Greenspan also warned of catastrophic consequences if FNM was not reregulated, but foolishly kept rates low. If he believed what he was saying he should have been raising them instead. At least Greenspan has had the honesty to admit he made mistakes, Dodd and Frank are still insisting they had nothing to do with this mess. As the heads of their respective banking committees, they had as much info as anyone about the problem, yet they ignored it. Perhaps the whole problem could have been mitigated somewhat if action had been taken sooner, but the Dems blocked it.
"Mortgages are a bank rip off anyway."
Then why did you get one?
jakenewton has no empathy. No point arguing with him if your stance is one based on concern for others.
Joe
"jakenewton has no empathy."
What a preposterous conclusion. How can you possibly come up with that? I had even said this:
"Are there some hard cases we should be concerned about, like certain children, elderly, or disabled? Sure. If you want some kind of government plan for that, we can discuss the details of it."
My question for you, as I have no way of knowing: Are you a lazy freeloader who feels entitled to the necessities of life just because you were born, but wants someone else to provide it for you?
Boy am I glad I saved a nice and young family from foreclosure and making it to your hate list ! Just blame everyone as "freeloaders" and keep inventing all that silly pie-in-the-sky economics even as it's all crashing.
"Just blame everyone as "freeloaders" "
Never did.
"and keep inventing all that silly pie-in-the-sky economics even as it's all crashing."
Here's a fact: Food, clothing, shelter, etc. don't just appear out of thin air. You can call that "pie in the sky" but then you would be a fool.
You're misinterpreting what I was saying but I'll let you figure it out when you're done believing that pennies come from the sky.
Nope.
Joe
Aside from rent, what other choices do you expect?
Then rent. Why is ownership of a house, when you clearly cannot afford to own one, considered so damn freaking important?
Homes should be considered a right, having a home is a need. We are our worst enemies when we cannot differentiate wants from needs, rights from dreams.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
"Homes should be considered a right,"
Then I demand that *you* provide a home for me. After all, it's my right. Are you ready to back up your declarations?
Do you believe you have the right to a home jakenewton? Are you ready to back up your right if you do?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
"Do you believe you have the right to a home jakenewton?"
No. I thought that was pretty clear.
Well it wasn't clear to me and what you think is still not clear. I have another question if you don't mind. Do you mean you don't have the right as in certain humans have no rights to a home, or that you are not given the right to a home? Or since you don't have a home you don't have the right to one?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
I don't think anyone has a right to a home. They instead have a right to make whatever arrangements they can to secure a home, usually by buying or renting. Are there some hard cases we should be concerned about, like certain children, elderly, or disabled? Sure. If you want some kind of government plan for that, we can discuss the details of it.
The problem with making a home, or food, or clothing, etc., a "right" is that it would have to follow that someone would have to then provide that. It seems to me that the incentive for many people to be productive to provide for themselves would be squashed as a result, and those who would be doing the providing would stop doing so at some point.
Ok, fair response, is there anything that you do believe people have a right to?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
"Ok, fair response, is there anything that you do believe people have a right to?"
People have a right to be able to pursue the things they need. We live in a complex economy. Where some people are needy of the necessaties I am open to some reasonable way of getting it to them.
Ok another fair response, thank you.
Do you believe that the right to pursue the things we need is currently a right that is supported well by our system?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
"Do you believe that the right to pursue the things we need is currently a right that is supported well by our system?"
Thank you for your civil manner. Most of the time, yes. The biggest problem would be with children, sick and injured, and others who lack the means for pursuit.
You are welcome, thank you for your time.
Yes I also think it is true that children lacking in any way creates the biggest problems of all for us.
We forget this often.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
"thank you for your time."
No problem, have a nice weekend.
"friends come together and have snow ball fights."
Sometimes enemies do too. It happened a few times in the American Civil War when the armies were in winter camps if I recall.
>>jakenewton: It happened a few times in the American Civil War when the armies were in winter camps if I recall.
How old are you, anyway? (sorry, couldn't let that one go. I'm otherwise not part of this thread at all :)
Highintel: Can we do better?
From what I read. :-)
"Where some people are needy of the necessaties I am open to some reasonable way of getting it to them."
So am I but unlike you, I actually look at the cases and don't go labelling everyone a "freeloader" like a mad man. Now quit being arrogant and get with the program and the times. I never said that owning a home is necessarily better than renting or vice versa. I pointed out different case scenarios which probably surprised you.
"labelling everyone a "freeloader""
Never did.
"get with the program "
Is that where I play victim the rest of my life and complain how the housing system is rigged? Sorry, that's a miserable way to live.
"Is that where I play victim the rest of my life and complain how the housing system is rigged? Sorry, that's a miserable way to live."
Apparently you live in a bubble so I can see you're not understanding what we're getting at. When you're out of the bubble, you let us know.
"I can see you're not understanding what we're getting at."
I know *exactly* what you are getting at. You have made it crystal clear. Consumers of homes are helpless victims. Providers are omnipotent greedy bastards. You have failed miserably in supporting this position. I predict your response will still not support that position and will probably contain another statement that you think I said but never said. *yawn*
"I know *exactly* what you are getting at."
You wish. You're just overgeneralizing and being a self-righteous bigot.
"You have made it crystal clear."
And yet you misinterpret it.
"Consumers of homes are helpless victims. Providers are omnipotent greedy bastards. "
Thanks jakenewton for admitting to your arrogance and elitism. You're the reason Main Street's screwed. You're probably a just a fat loser living in your parent's basement listening to Neil Boortz with delusions of grandeur. If you had actually rented an apartment, you'd know the reality but you don't so you don't.
"You have failed miserably in supporting this position. I predict your response will still not support that position and will probably contain another statement that you think I said but never said."
Speak for yourself. You already proved yourself way out of line and dishonest but I've come across self-righteous bigots just like you. So I see that reasoning with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
"*yawn*"
You obviously need to get some sleep and repair your brain.
"You're just overgeneralizing and being a self-righteous bigot."
*You* are the one who just insulted millions of Philadelphians, calling their city a ghetto.
I said OTHER THAN RENT which meant I was asking for a 3rd option. As for renting, it ain't necessarily cheaper depending upon the location and the landlords can gouge their customers any time they want. Plus there's no tax deduction. And don't forget that most often you'll be asked to give your current salary and then they decide whether to accept you or not. And if you're in a situation where suddenly you're unable to keep up with your rental payments, say an illness or a job layoff, get ready to be evicted. I'm not saying renting is worse but it ain't a panacea either.
"I said OTHER THAN RENT which meant I was asking for a 3rd option. "
I know you did. Outside of outright gifts of housing, there are no other options in all of history.
"As for renting, it ain't necessarily cheaper depending upon the location"
"Cheapness" of housing is quite different than whether the terms of a mortgage are favorable or not.
"and the landlords can gouge their customers any time they want."
Total BS. Renters can select among a wide range of rental options in most markets. There happen to be for example many vacant apartments for rent in the market I live in. Theses landlords "compete" with each other to actually close deals on leases. Where the market is tight, a renter can decide to go to some other market.
"Total BS."
No, and I can show you receipts from plenty of customers from various apartments and then you'd have to take it back.
"Renters can select among a wide range of rental options in most markets"
First of all, the market is RIGGED. Second, once the price goes up, it rarely drops. No apartment I've known of ever reduced its monthly fees. Name me one and show evidence if you have one.
"There happen to be for example many vacant apartments for rent in the market I live in."
What city do you live in? I'd like to check that out so that I can help a penpal of mine if I can. Consider yourself lucky because it doesn't work that way in most places.
"Theses landlords "compete" with each other to actually close deals on leases."
Anyone can do that but it's not as if they have to follow their own contracts. I've witnessed landlords changing their contracts on sudden whims all too often and I'd happily show you the proof any day.
"Where the market is tight, a renter can decide to go to some other market."
That's assuming there's even a real market and not another fudged one. Landlords are no more "saints" than the banks or lenders. It's all a matter of where you're at. All this nonsense about there being a "free" market of "choices" is what screwed us all up to begin with.
"What city do you live in? I'd like to check that out so that I can help a penpal of mine if I can."
Philadelphia is nicer than Philadelphians say it is, maybe your pal would like to live there. Here is a report on the rental market:
http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/CMAR_PhiladelphiaPA.pdf
With a vacancy rate of 6.4% your freind should be able to negotiate a rate below asking.
Vacancy rates seem to be quite a bit higher in most other areas:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual07/ann07t5.html
Yup, knowing there are other vacant apartments to rent if you don't like the one you are in is an advantage to the renter, and shows just one way how landlords have to compete with one another.
Ah Philadelphia. Plenty of ghettos out there. Apparently, the high costs of living coupled with ripoff prices will keep them vacant alright. No thanks.
"Ah Philadelphia. Plenty of ghettos out there."
BTW, this has got to be one of the most ignorant, stupid comments I have ever read on this board. I have a lot of nice leftist freinds in Philadelphia, I'm going to visit some at The Sattelite Cafe later today. You would like them. But instead, you would just brutally insult them with this garbage. I am sure some of them participate in these boards. What a miserable performance.
If you can't support your position, you really should not stoop to these levels.
According to jakenewton, only jakenewton's corporatist propanganda is "right" while everyone who detects his flaws are "wrong". Got it.
What's this have to do with you insulting millions of Philadelphians?
"Ah Philadelphia. Plenty of ghettos out there."
In case you haven't noticed there are "ghettos" in every major market in the country. This stupid comment is completely irrelevant.
"Apparently, the high costs of living coupled with ripoff prices will keep them vacant alright"
LOL! Did you even think before writing this? How can a landlord make money on vacant apartments?
According to jakenewton, only jakenewton's corporatist propanganda is "right" while everyone who detects his flaws are "wrong". Got it.
" I can show you receipts from plenty of customers from various apartments and then you'd have to take it back."
Nonsense, no one can gouge you without your permission. Your "customers" can shop for another apartment if they don't like the deal they have now.
"First of all, the market is RIGGED."
What's your very best evidence of this? Am I to beleive that renters, collectively, are just sheep that take anything that landlords force on them? That's stupid.
"No apartment I've known of ever reduced its monthly fees."
Anecdotal, and even if true irrelevent. Here's my anecdote: In the ten years I've lived here, the two adjacent units have seen eight different tenants. They both sat vacant for significant time as well. The point is that renters can shop around. Landlords don't like losing good tenants and having vacant apartments.
"Consider yourself lucky because it doesn't work that way in most places."
C'mon, are you trying to tell me there is some apartment shortage? Do you have any evidence of that? Don't you think that the record inventory of houses effects rentals in a similar way?
"I've witnessed landlords changing their contracts on sudden whims all too often and I'd happily show you the proof any day."
Show me that and I'll show you a renter with no spine. It's a two way street. That's as much their fault that they accept such a change that would never hold up in court.
"Landlords are no more "saints""
They're just people.
"All this nonsense about there being a "free" market of "choices" is what screwed us all up to begin with."
You instead pretend that landlords are omnipotent. That idea is what's screwed up. There may be a few tight markets for rentals where the market favors landlords in the US but on average, no way. People sit down and agree to leases every day.
"Nonsense, no one can gouge you without your permission."
Apparently, you never bothered to check for yourself. It's out there.
"Am I to beleive that renters, collectively, are just sheep that take anything that landlords force on them? "
First of all, renters don't have much of a say so the answer is yes. Sure, if more tenants put enough pressure on the landlord and if the landlord's ripoff attitude became well known, it might change.
"C'mon, are you trying to tell me there is some apartment shortage?"
It's easy to economically mug consumers who are pushed into thinking that they have no choice. But since you live in a bubble, you wouldn't understand.
"That's as much their fault that they accept such a change that would never hold up in court."
According to jake, if a landlord changes the contract on a whim, it's always the tenant's fault. Got it.
"They're just people."
You mean greedy bastards just like the homeowners you accuse of being greedy.
"There may be a few tight markets for rentals where the market favors landlords in the US but on average, no way."
I don't know where you invented that idea from.
"People sit down and agree to leases every day."
That doesn't mean anything.
"First of all, renters don't have much of a say so the answer is yes."
Total BS. Every single day, renters move out of homes and into others. They this fact demonstrates that they have choices. Landlords know that. yet you want to somehow irrationally believe that landlords are omnipotent and renters powerless. That's a miserable cliche.
""C'mon, are you trying to tell me there is some apartment shortage?""
"It's easy to economically mug consumers who are pushed into thinking that they have no choice."
Please explain how, assuming of course that the consumer is older than five. We have established at least that generally speaking there is no shortage of rental homes.
"According to jake, if a landlord changes the contract on a whim, it's always the tenant's fault. Got it."
This is the third time you have claimed I said something that I never said. If a landlord say, raises the rent contrary to the contract, the renter simply refuses to pay it. Then it's up to the landlord to go to court with a case they cannot possibly win.
"They're just people."
"You mean greedy bastards"
My landlord is a family of perfectly nice people. They come by promptly to fix things that need fixing. They give me timely notice of rate increases. If I didn't like it I can move out, right down the street to any of several competitors, and they know that. You OTOH have the sorry miserable attitude that assumes the very worst of people.
"just like the homeowners you accuse of being greedy."
This is at least the fourth time you have accused me of saying something I never said. I think you are doing this because you know how weak your position is.
"I don't know where you invented that idea from."
I posted a link showing vacancy rates in 75 large markets that were often over 10%. I don't think you knew what a vacancy rate is before now. You have shown absolutely no evidence in this discussion that you have any knowledge of the rental business.
According to jakenewton, only jakenewton's corporatist propanganda is "right" while everyone who detects his flaws are "wrong". Got it.