Hooray - Help for Homeowners is on the way!

[Mac1337]

$tevie wrote:
You refinance the mortgage at 4% instead of 8% which lowers the payment from, say, $735 to $475.

If it was that simple don't you think somebody outside the renowned MacResources Forum 'Friendly" Political Ranting blog would have thought of it? There are all sorts of barriers to refinancing. Unless you address them you don't have a plan.

[beerman]

RgrF and gutenberg, the misinformation in this thread is a disservice to the people reading this forum. Obviously as a board member I have no financial stake in CCCS, I donate my time because I believe it is a worthy cause. In fact nobody working at CCCS is making very much money, it is a non-profit and the salaries are below average.

The goal of CCCS is to help consumers pay the money they owe to creditors. There can be no disputing the fact they owe the money and should pay their bills. Most people start what we call a DMP or Debt Management Program where they make a single payment to CCCS who then disperses the money to the creditors. This is done with an overall plan to reduce the persons debt and get them out of their credit trouble. Most plans take 1-2 years.

If anyone is profiting it is certainly you RgrF, if you are steering people away from CCCS. While CCCS's goal is to keep people OUT of bankruptcy your goal appears to be to profit by their bankruptcy.

[Lux Interior]

Dakota wrote:
Then there is this clincher. The lenders are supposed to make the payments 31% of owners income. How do you do that?

Income * 0.31 = Payment

Dakota wrote:
For some of these mortgages principle payment alone is more than 31%. You expect them to give out interest free loans? Is there money in the bail out for that?

I'm not following you here. "principle payment alone is more than 31%" doesn't mean anything. Your payment is (x)% interest and (100-x)% principal.

It seems like you are saying that the payments can't be lowered to X because the payments are larger than X.

[Mac1337]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
Then there is this clincher. The lenders are supposed to make the payments 31% of owners income. How do you do that?

Income * 0.31 = Payment
What if the payment coming out of this formula can't service the loan? There are no plans to write-down the principal; the only sure way to lower the payments. Interest rate has a marginal impact on someone facing foreclosure.

[$tevie]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
You refinance the mortgage at 4% instead of 8% which lowers the payment from, say, $735 to $475.

If it was that simple don't you think somebody outside the renowned MacResources Forum 'Friendly" Political Ranting blog would have thought of it? There are all sorts of barriers to refinancing. Unless you address them you don't have a plan.
Um, people have thought of it and that is exactly what this plan addresses. It gives incentives to lenders to modify the loan to a lower interest rate, whereas before it was being requested as a voluntary sacrifice by the lenders (as if). It is an effort to remove the barriers that were preventing loan modification. This means that 1. more people can stay in their homes and 2. banks will no longer be holding as many so-called toxic loans which will mean they will have less negative assets. It does not lower the amount you owe on the house, it lowers the interest and thus the mortgage payment. You will still owe the same principal as you did before. It actually is not intended to benefit someone who bought a $900,000 house that they could never possibly afford, those people are probably still screwed since their mortgage exceeds the top amount eligible, so you can rest easier there. It is intended to help someone for whom a payment of $475 as opposed to $735 (or whatever) is going to mean the difference between foreclosure and no foreclosure.

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
Thanks, Roger, now I know why beerman's being deliberately dense--he has a profit motive.

kj, if you do not know the difference between dealing with a private, commercial landlord, for whom you need to produce first and last month's rent and a security deposit in advance, and dealing with a Section 8 federal subsidy or public housing--the kinds of apartments you put people on supplemental security income, or Social Security Disability, into--then you are hopeless.

It's not usually section 8, dorkbait. Even here, section 8 housing is literally dangerous. kj.

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
More of a middle ground than some people WANT to believe. We have been saying and saying and saying that the program is for people who have gotten caught in this mess through no (or very little) fault of their own, but the righties insist on shrieking about McMansions and mortgage cheats.

Obviously they haven't been paying attention to the plight of many areas of the Midwest, where housing values have been declining for a decade or so, and people who need to move for a job, or because of family, can't sell the house they currently own. Get ready, California, because this kind of deflation is coming your way. I have talked to quite a few people who are upside-down in their mortgages in Baltimore, and it is not a comfortable position at all. It will take years to work out of it.

It's ridiculous that the righties would rather see many good people on the street than risk rewarding one person who gamed the system. Absolutely dumbfounding.

It's dumbfounding to me that, not only can't you understand the other side of this argument, but you can't even understand there is another side to this argument. You just keep setting up the same strawmen, along with your insults. Not particularly insightful. kj.

[deckeda]

If someone calls someone else "dorkbait," doesn't than mean the "bait" worked? Then again it was the claim she insulted YOU that first caught my eye here.

[Mac1337]

Gutenberg wrote:


It's ridiculous that the righties would rather see many good people on the street than risk rewarding one person who gamed the system. Absolutely dumbfounding.

Last time I heard this red herring was during the welfare reform debate. Children on the side walk, starving to death.

...They are coming after our children. Remember that?

[kj]

deckeda wrote:
If someone calls someone else "dorkbait," doesn't than mean the "bait" worked? Then again it was the claim she insulted YOU that first caught my eye here.

Dakota just said it, but dorkbait is barely even an insult compared to saying that I don't care about people living on the streets, that I'm stupid because I don't know my own business, etc. She's making assumptions, not for any good reason, but only so she can insult. Where did I say these people are in section 8 housing? If they were, then what I said would be stupid (I guess), so the assumption just HAS to be made. Does she know people can live in section 8 housing without receiving any kind of section 8 subsidy? Has she ever heard of renters offering incentives? I actually bet she has, but then what I say would make sense, and we can't have that. kj.