What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
207 Comments
- BESTenemy, on 09/12/2008, -5/+56Freezing foreclosures for 90 days doesn't solve any fundamental issues as to why we are in the mess in the first place. What it does do, is it keeps the foreclosures off the banks' books until the very end of this presidential term. That way the statistical data gets pushed, giving Bush a safe last term departure statement and then offloads the total economic chaos onto the succeeding nominee. Next guy inherits the sinking ship and a teaspoon to scoop the water out with.
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -6/+52It's bad enough we reward the lazy, but now the stupid and fiscally irresponsible.
- stroebele, on 09/12/2008, -7/+47Hey if they won't foreclose, why should I make my house payment.
- coachmcguirk, on 09/12/2008, -0/+30That is serious alliteration!
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -2/+25What is it with peoples obsessions of buying homes they cannot afford?
- mfc5200, on 09/12/2008, -3/+24"turn these non-performing loans into performing assets to minimize losses,''
Classic example of career lawyers/politicians who have never once held real jobs pretending they know better than actual private industry employees whats best for their companies.
If you froze foreclosures, one thing would happen:
Companies would refuse to issue new mortgages and would have no reserves/liquidity to do so since they can't foreclose houses and sell them. The reason they foreclose houses, is to cut their losses and raise capital.
So these ***** are trying to protect people who couldn't afford houses, but bought them anyway, hoping their prices would increase. But who is looking out for the current prospective home buyer? Because if you tie up all existing capital today (which isn't much) buy not letting these companies foreclose non-paying homes, no one will be able to get a new mortgage on favorable terms. So how is that fair to everyone who was responsible and stood on the sidelines during this whole housing mess? Is the government just telling them, "sorry, we don't think now is the right time for you to buy a home with the money you were responsibly saving"?
Of course, the government could create a temporary loophole by simply taking on debt and loaning these companies all of the cash they would need to both freeze foreclosure and hand out new mortgages. But again, the person who was responsible is seeing his share of the national debt go up (and thus his taxes in the long run) as a result of the irresponsibility of others.
HOW IS THAT FAIR!?!? Stuff like this pisses me off... - Akairenn, on 09/12/2008, -3/+23Maybe Americans should stop buying houses they can't afford.
- chrissku, on 09/12/2008, -0/+15Definition: Let's put off the foreclosures for 90 days. Just enough time to get through the election. ***** politicians. Irresponsible *****. I say we elect a completely new Congress and Senate.
- cubicledrone, on 09/12/2008, -1/+15If it's under Federal control why does the Senate have to "urge" a 90 day freeze? Oh that's right. Congress just signs checks.
- Wargalas, on 09/12/2008, -4/+17Freeze on foreclosure's why? I make my mortgage payment because I did the math and found out what I could afford even if I were unemployed, and didn't go above that price.
If you didn't plan on job loss, divorce, or any other catastrophic event when you bought yours, you're an idiot and you should be thrown out of a home you couldn't afford anyway. - inactive, on 09/12/2008, -0/+12Congressional pay raise's got to come from somewhere.
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -4/+15Thank you US Government for putting the burden of crappy investors and people who couldn't afford a home on our shoulders. I've been careful with my money, I don't spend what I don't have, and I invest the little I have left over for my future. So why am I paying for all these losers again?
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -3/+13I'm really tired of this *****.
- coachmcguirk, on 09/12/2008, -0/+10she shells sheashells... ahhh.. I just can't do it!!!
- message144, on 09/12/2008, -4/+13Let all the ignorant, greedy fools lose their houses. It isn't my problem. Some of us were taking the time and patience to make informed, wise decisions with our money.
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -2/+11It's called a savings account. You know... make sure you are buying a home you can afford, meaning, you can save money while living in that home. Want to know a fantastic rule-of-thumb for not dying when you lose your job? Set aside money every month until you have at least 6 months of living expenses in your savings account. This requires self-discipline, something that consumer-crazed people just can't wrap their minds around. Limited or no debt is the way to live, unless you like slaving your life out to paying off interest.
Those who understand interest, earn it. Those who don't, pay it. - workingsmart, on 09/12/2008, -4/+13Exactly... this was a VERY bad idea. Not only are all the people who are foreclosing going to get used to not paying and continue not paying in december, but also, the regular payers will take advantage of the situation... then, when no one pays in three months the entire economy of the united states will crash. Merry Christmas!!!
- Bloodwine, on 09/12/2008, -1/+10If they do too much of this, it will cause a backlash. I know I am not the only fiscally responsible person tired of rewarding those who live outside their means.
Sure stuff happens and suddenly you can't pay your mortgage bills. However, I think that's the exception and not the rule in these times. A lot of people bought way more house than they could afford, and in the process drive up house prices to where even more people couldn't afford them. Do not reward them. - nutmac, on 09/12/2008, -5/+13So if I vote for Obama, I don't have to make mortgage payments? Poor regulation in ever-complex mortgage industry deserves a large chunk of the blame, but I don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Politicians are politicians. Don't be so naive in thinking Obama will fix everything.
- JAHred, on 09/12/2008, -5/+12Only if a person could afford to pay the home off pending a refinance should they freeze a foreclosure. Otherwise kick them out!!
- ralphodog, on 09/12/2008, -1/+8Poor regulation isn't at fault. It's the government setting an example and saying that high risk failures will result in bailouts that is driving failures like the banking industry.
- Edudris, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6I once had a conversation with someone in the business of selling houses/mortgages.
Me: I can afford $300,000 (which is a 1-br apartment in San Diego)
Crook: Hm, I can probably find you something. Are you sure you don't want to buy something bigger? I mean, you'll likely not be here for long. You'll get married, have kids and need a bigger house. The closing costs money and in time, houses will be more expensive too. How much do you make exactly and what is your credit score.
Me: I make X a year and my credit score is Y.
Crook: Holy *****! I can get you a mortgage for $700,000
Me: This is why I rent. I can't afford more than a cardboard box and you know it. - Factionrider, on 09/12/2008, -2/+8Some people have residual income. By the way, technically until the mortgage is paid off the bank owns the homes, and banks have every right to foreclose. It's one of those rights the bank needs in order to remain in business, otherwise why would anyone ever pay their mortgage.
- seocookie, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7What I don't get is how these mortgage issuers/banks are going bankrupt, and how senators like Chris Dodd and Barney Franks say these cannot under any circumstances fail, well then what do you have? The Government supporting an industry which is robbing society of productivity and its resources. Not to mention the fact that since it IS the Federal Government who is keeping these companies afloat, where the hell is this money going to come from??? Over $10 trillion in mortgages are out there folks; are we going to insure them all??? $10 trillion...wasn't there some articles just a few days ago about the $9.5 trillion debt?? Yeah, this would more than double our national debt. So what do we have in the end?? Potentially $19.5 trillion debt with companies still operating that have proven inefficient. Has anyone heard of free market before?? I mean, it seems as though the United States doesn't have a ****ing clue that it's somehow our responsibility to bail out industries which are "too big to fail".
A Depression is looming folks. Had we have let this correct itself without inserting hundreds of billions of dollars and having the Government obligate itself to TRILLIONS in horrendous housing securities, the problem would have fixed itself within 12-18 months. Now we're looking at 5-10 years minimum, and it could be longer. What's scary is that we're employing more radical policies than FDR did, and he did it in the midst of the problem. We're barely even in it any we're already pouring trillions of dollars in guarantees...what happens in three years when this problem still ain't fixed??? We'll have a dozen more to contend with. - edstate, on 09/12/2008, -2/+8@cubicledrone:
People very well SHOULD be thrown out of their homes if they can't pay for them. Just like they should be relieved of ANYTHING they buy (on credit) that they can't live up to. Just because it's a house doesn't mean it's any different. They can rent. Just like a lot of us do.
People like you with your little soundbytes are becoming more of a problem than the actual economy. - inactive, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7"it takes two to tango."
NO, IT DOESN'T. Anyone who tries to live under a budget can add 1+1=2. And if you're the kind of people that gets "convinced" by a predatory lender, then keep your penises and vaginas inside of your underwear, please. We don't want your stupid DNA replicating any further.
With this being said, of course those freakin' RicoSuave-haircut entry-level loan officers should get demoted to McDs. But it doesn't take two to sign a predatory loan, it only takes one stupid hand to hold the pen. Don't reallocate the responsibility for one's budget away. - stark2051, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Chapter 7 is for individuals.
- angryfirelord, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Because buying a home is a purely voluntary act. Are banks evil in their loaning methods? Yes, I'd say they're worse than a used car salesman. However, when you sign the papers, you are ultimately responsible for making those payments and understanding the conditions, so it is up to you to learn that information in advance. Ignorance is not an excuse.
- shthap3ns, on 09/12/2008, -3/+8Instead of paying my mortgage this month, I'm going to buy some Freddie Mac stock.
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7Dear sir, you're an idiot. Of course it's the government's and the Republicans' fault that X millions imbeciles, in their midget-minded zeal for keeping up with the Jones', they got into predatory loans. After all, Democrats are known for having a culture of self-restraint and preparing for the future, right? Everybody knows Democrat urban America got it all right when it comes to future planning and wise spending, when compared to Republican suburban and rural America, of course.
/s - jodes440, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5And maybe Banks shouldn't be able to hide losses in off-balance vehicles, garbage CDO's shouldn't be rated AAA, Glass-Steagall shouldn't have been repealed, politicians shouldn't have taken massive campaign contributions, the SEC should do their job, etc etc etc.
- connieLingus, on 09/12/2008, -4/+9i think next they should ask them to buy everyone an ice cream, too.
- omgwtflawl, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7These people bought houses they knew they couldn't afford. What the hell did they think was going to happen? Its just like that lady on a disability check every month who bought that BMW, then complained to the news when it got repo'd.
MAYBE they should have stopped, and thought about if they could actually afford this mortgage or not before plunging in and buying a home they didn't afford.
I do feel sorry for them, but in the end the blame rests on their shoulders. - cadmiumpaint, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7Everyone is blaming the home owner. This is the banks fault for making irresponsible loans. What about the banks who decided to target high risk candidates and issue loans to high risk borrowers hoping they get to forclose? The banks got greedy and figured out that if they convince a wide eyed prospective home owner to take out a giant home loan that they can't afford they could just forclose and sell the house at auction and make a profit either way. OR they could just sell the loan off to another bank which is pretty common from what i've read. Problem is, that only works in small doses. When everyone wants to do that, or you have entire housing devlopments that are up for bank auction nothing sells and the banks are left holding a bad loan and a house they can't sell.
- ebrandsberg, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5I can't wait until they do this, and realize they screwed up big time. At least in California, delaying foreclosure proceedings can result in restarting the clock. As it is, it takes at least 6 months (if I recall) from the time the initial foreclosure notices are delivered to the point when the house can be sold. What the lawmakers should be encouraging is for the financial institutions to rent the properties once the property has become bank owned at fair rental value to the previous tenant for at least six months. By requiring this, it will help keep the houses occupied (and keep them from being gutted), and help reduce the number of houses showing up on the market as bank owned properties for the near-term. If the banks start covering their costs with the rentals (after being forced to hire out rental managers, etc), then even after the mandatory six month period is over, they could find that it is more profitable to keep the rentals going than to dump them all on the market at once. Only the non-performing properties will be dumped, but overall it would keep the market healthier. Yes, those previous tenants weren't able to keep up on mortgage payments, but if the housing market in an area becam devalued to the point where it wasn't worth keeping, the fair market rental price may be sustainable for them.
Just a thought. - SpudgeBoy, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7Maybe lending companies should have given people the prime loans they qualified for instead of the sub-prime loans they didn't need.
- Akairenn, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7It's called ensuring you have savings in the event you become *gasp* unemployed. So you know, you don't like, default on your mortgage or other important bills.
People shouldn't be thrown out of their homes? No - people should not buy homes they cannot afford and then bitch when they've been irresponsible enough not to plan for a rainy day. - JenniferInMO, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4This video explains, specifically with references to actions he has taken how we should have avoided this economic mess in the first place and how we get out of the trouble we are in now:http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Barack_Obama_Pre ... How not to get out of the trouble we are in now:
- Claim the "fundamentals of our economy are strong." over and over again - McCain
- Hire 177 corporate lobbyists to run a Presidential campaign - McCain
- Pick the most elite corporate lobbyists and lobbyists for foreign governments as your 7 top advisors and managers - McCain
- Name as your top 2 economic advisors Phill Gramm, who is a banking lobbyist and former Senator that almost singlehandedly pushed through extreme banking deregulation and practically designed the Bush economic policy. He is the architect of McCain's economic policy. AND the current CEO of Merrill Lynch who just headed the decline, near failure and recent sell off at a fraction of what it was worth last year - McCain
- Make sure your that clients of your top to economic advisors (a banking lobbyist and the CEO of one of the failed financial firms) are your top fundraisers - McCain
- Tap William Timmons, probably THE most elite corporate lobbyist in the nation (oil and gas industry, pharmaceuticals,
etc.) to head up McCain's presidential transition team (i.e. the guys who make recommendations for cabinet and top administrative positions). How do you think our Executive branch will work when it is filled with the elite of the elite lobbyists? - McCain
McCain doesn't even try to hide this. He is mocking the American people and his own party. If you are thinking of voting for this guy, you need to question whether your loyalty lies with your party or your conservative values.
Read Obama's book, or at least stop by the library and read the chapter on "Opportunity" - The Audacity of Hope. You will be surprised just how pragmatic and centerist this guy is. - Dalhectar, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5The Banks should have done more due diligence in the first place and not offer loans to people who couldn't afford them. I don't see how you can back the companies that make the loans, prop up the institutions that back the banks, but then leave the little guy with the bill.
a 90 day freeze won't help much, but the problem is that there's going to have to a reckoning sooner or later. I don't think delaying it 90 days will help much, but if I were losing my home, I guess 90 days gives me a little extra time to pack (or find some way to get out of the situation, repay the banks, and get my ***** together). - cadmiumpaint, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6what is it with banks who convince people that they can afford houses that our outside of their means and sucker them in with ridiculous loans that are above their heads.
it takes two to tango. - Franey97, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5Take a load off Fannie?
- JenniferInMO, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4Thanks to this: http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes ... we now have this: http://www.usaspending.gov/ It is an awesome revenue tracking site. A lot of the pork spending is being uncovered by bloggers because of this site.
- darkfire79, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Um, what exactly does "under federal control" mean, if they have to "ask" them to do anything?
- xero69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Freezing foreclosures is a bad idea. Why not let the people who have a good history of paying on time simply convert their crappy ARM into a decent fixed rate?
- BAFrayd, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4"how about we apply the same principles to the auto makers who are lining up for billions?"
Sounds good. Looks like your starting to get it. - angryfirelord, on 09/12/2008, -3/+7Heartless republican? It's called "being able to take care of yourself." If you buy a big, expensive house that forces you to live paycheck to paycheck (or in most cases today, go into debt), then you deserve to be kicked out for your bad financial planning. Asking the government to pay for your house because you can't make the monthly payments is called being irresponsible. If you want to be financially secure, then you need to allot money wisely rather than recklessly spend it.
- NidStyles, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6Come on that's the way of US. Forget actually developing industry for them to be able to actually provide for themselves. We'll just give everything to them instead. I mean afterall the rest of us hard working individual's are happy to provide charity, right? It's the American way...
/sarcasm
On the serious note; I'd just like to know where the heck all of those thousands I pay in taxes every go. - inactive, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6It's not true??
Please.... - edstate, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5If there was fraud, they by all means prosecute. Big time. But the homeowners and flippers with dollar signs dancing in their heads were the "lead" in this tango, make no mistake.
- edstate, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6The world needds more people like you warglass, and a lot less pasty leeches like cubicledrone.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 214 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is