Goodness

And no, I’m not a fan of this. I realize it makes me cold hearted, but still.

The U.S. Treasury Department has committed almost $127 million to aid unemployed Georgia homeowners facing foreclosure, but state officials are still unsure when residents might see relief.

12 comments

  1. joe says:

    hypothetical numbers

    mortgage 150,000
    monthly payment 1,500

    So if this program pays the lender 2 points or 3,000 to refinance and make the payment 1,250, the homeowner is still unemployed, and still can’t make a payment and still gets a foreclosure notice.

    What rocket scientist thought this up?

    • polisavvy says:

      I agree with you, joe. It makes no sense to help someone who does not have the ability (i.e., a job) to make the payments regardless of how much they are lowered. The aid should be offered to the ones who may have missed payments for medical reasons or short term job loss and who have gotten their feet back on the ground — not to help those who have been unemployed for a long period of time.

        • polisavvy says:

          It was definitely a major player in the recession, that’s for sure. I think the feds should quit with their tinkering — it doesn’t appear to be working all that well, in my opinion.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      If you ever lose your job due to the economy and can’t get another for a year or longer or you have a devasting illness, like cancer or a car wreck leaves you crippled and you can’t get a job, you could be glad that “rocket scientist” thought the program up.

      Companies and government jobs who decide you are the “fat” that needs to be cut aren’t caring that you have a mortgage to pay or need food to eat. They save money in one area but create bills in another by paying out unemployment comp, foodstamps, and Medicaid, so in the long run, no monies are saved and our national debt grows.

      For the cancer example, the costs are astronomical any way you look at it through medications, lost productive hours, and more. If you put off getting life insurance for your family because you think you are too young to deal with that possibility or don’t want to think about it and you get a terminal disease, you could be putting your family in the street.

      As for the car crash example, insurance companies find any possible way not to pay out the money or they offer a dime for every dollar a person is due so an attorney gets involved. Now you may get a payment but it is so far into the future, that you may lose your house and everything else waiting for that payoff. When the day comes, the attorney gets roughly 35% PLUS expenses.

      The attitude of some seems to be the person suffering in this manner is at fault. If the small business person, like home remodelers, get no business or if they have a severe medical illness, I guess we could step over their body and refuse to offer a hand as they become homeless and starve.

      Of course you could move in with your parents and live in the attic or the basement and have a discourse about how the government needs to ignore the nearly 30 plus percent of people who are unemployed or underemployed in an economic mess in which many factors were beyond their control rather than offer some type of program to get our country stablized until the masses can fend for themselves.

  2. saltycracker says:

    Well maybe the lenders, Isakson & friends can figure out how to get $127 million more than they had before…

  3. Lady Thinker says:

    I think we should help people reduce their mortgages who do not have the ability (i.e., a job) to make the payments regardless of how much they are lowered because it reduces their monthly outflow and with part-time jobs, they may be able to pay the lowered amount and save the property.

  4. Doug Grammer says:

    This is the way I see it. Lenders gave loans to people who qualified for a loan. Many of those people have lost their job and can’t afford to keep their home. Life is harsh like that.

    Is it the roll of government to help people honor their obligations? Or let me rephrase that…is it the roll of government to take tax money from people who are meeting their obligations and give it to those who do not? Asking the government to do something for this many people is not a good idea. It’s unfair to lenders for the government to force them to write down loans, or renegotiate terms without going through bankruptcy court.

    Here is the way the system is supposed to work. You buy a house. You make your payments. If something happens where you can’t make your payments and the lenders won’t work with you, file bankruptcy. A judge will look at your financial situation and may force you into a 13 as opposed to a 7, or he/she may not grant you a bankruptcy at all. Credit maybe ruined, but that’s a small price to pay to stay in your home. The lenders are in an even rougher spot. Eventually it will dawn on them that they may want to willingly renegotiate the terms of a loan as opposed to rolling the dice in bankruptcy court.

    It’s a horrible situation, but the solution proposed here doesn’t work. It just puts off the inevitable.

  5. NoTeabagging says:

    Crazy concept, but here goes. What if property values were adjusted to realistic prices and lenders were forced to adjust loans to the appraisals. Level the playing field, so to speak. Perhaps folks could keep their homes if monthly payments were lowered. Neighborhoods keep residents, banks have incomes and people invest in goods and services for their home.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Good point,

        If you think it’s fair to drop the amount of money that was borrowed to buy the home, do you think it’s fair to raise the amount of money that they owe for no reason either?

  6. saltycracker says:

    The air in the bubble involves gov’t tactics to increase home ownership while rewarding leverage and debt, a failure of lending and banking regulations, Wall Street tactics to provide easy money, blind faith in increasing values, a grow/spend today, pay tomorrow culture, Execs looting their companies via flawed, irresponsible performance goals and the ponzi loving public. The achilles heel of the optimist is trust.

    Why is the public paying for the bubble created by Washington, Wall Street and the overleveraged ? Because at the end of the day we won’t or can’t sort it out from Barney Frank to Goldman Sachs to Moody’s to Wachovia to the gambling homeowner.

Comments are closed.