Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Werner Michael Heus
2227 Followers
Yuki Cross
1380 Followers
HotHardware.com
7859 Followers
revsharpton
86 Followers
Robert Wright
7403 Followers
xophermvOct 10, 2010
Typical Republican nonsense of blaming the victim instead of the bloodsucking corporations making the mistakes.
And yes, there are examples of banks going after the wrong people - plenty of them.
bobcat7407Oct 10, 2010
Who's the victim they're blaming? The people who cannot pay for their homes? How are they victims? And please provide proof of "plenty" of examples.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xophermvOct 10, 2010
If the people couldn't pay for the homes, then why did the banks give them money? Sounds like the banks were stupid. Now, instead of helping the homeowners into a mortgage they could afford, the banks would rather throw those people on the street. So, the banks are both stupid and evil. And, the banks knowingly broke the law. That's makes them stupid, evil, and criminals. Great combination. And you're defending the banks? What does that say about you?
As for the examples, here are some. They took me about 5 minutes to find. So, if you didn't know about them, I'd have to say you didn't even look.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-09-23/business/fl-wrongful-foreclosure-0922-20100921_1_foreclosure-defense-attorney-foreclosure-case-jumana-bauwens
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/robo-signers-blamed-foreclosure-mistakes/story?id=11798650
http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Foreclosure-Errors-Ownership-Homes/2010/10/01/id/372285
bobcat7407Oct 10, 2010
"If the people couldn't pay for the homes, then why did the banks give them money? Sounds like the banks were stupid"
Agreed. So were the people. It is not just the banks.
"Now, instead of helping the homeowners into a mortgage they could afford, the banks would rather throw those people on the street."
This is as a result of the people not paying their bills. Is it evil for McDonald's to refuse to just give someone a Big Mac? There is nothing evil about it.
"And, the banks knowingly broke the law."
Mistakes were made, but where does it say that they "knowingly broke the law"?
"That's makes them stupid, evil, and criminals. Great combination. And you're defending the banks? What does that say about you?"
Stupid? Maybe. Evil? Doubtful. Criminals? Remains to be seen.
"Typical Republican nonsense of blaming the victim instead of the bloodsucking corporations making the mistakes."
You didn't answer my questions from the original post. Who are the victims they are blaming? Also, where do Republicans come into it?
I'll give you the three examples, although the first one is being corrected by BofA at their expense and the last two were because of paperwork mistakes. Is that bad? Yes. Is it evil? No. Maybe the banks have been neglectful dealing with all of the foreclosures that have happened but that doesn't make them evil.
nerysOct 10, 2010
I am sorry if I have trouble feeling any sympathy for criminal organizations such as home lenders.
I am sorry but charging interest of 85% to 140% is CRIMINAL by any definition that is relevant to me.
Its amazing how affordable owning a home would become if interest rates were ACTUALLY "my gosh" FAIR say 10%
(please make sure your aware of the difference between an APR and an ACTUAL effective interest rate before yelling at me.
a 5.8% APR comes to about 80-85% interest on your average home.
bobcat7407Oct 10, 2010
You do know that people voluntarily enter into contracts with these "criminal organizations", right?
mccleskey919Oct 10, 2010
Oh! That's so true! They totally voluntarily make this choice, in particular, because it, out of all the other options they had, was the best.
People don't make these choices voluntarily; they do it out of necessity.
bobcat7407Oct 10, 2010
What? You buy a house out of necessity, not voluntarily? Ever heard of renting?
udee79Oct 10, 2010
Could you go through an example that demonstrates how 5.8 APR is actually 85%?
thanks
y0tsuyaOct 10, 2010
I vaguely remember you making the same retarded argument a few months back. Can't believe you're still spouting the same drivel. Good luck finding anyone who'll lend you money, say 100K for 30 years, just to receive 10K in interest back for the whole 30 years. I bet if you have 100K to lend you wouldn't do it either.
Also low interest rates make housing MORE expensive because most people only care about monthly payment. Each 1% decrease in 30yr mortgage interest means you can bid up a house by 10% and still make the same payment as before. How did you think the housing bubble came about? Greenspan lowered the short-term interest rate to 1%, which helped dramatically lower ARM interest rates, and to a lesser extent 30yr fixed. It helped drive up housing prices.
joculatorOct 10, 2010
Good, I hope the market utterly colapses; it really should with so many people unemployed.
linageeOct 10, 2010
There is no "surprise twist" in the movie of life. You just get poorer and poorer until you are a third world country and your currency is worthless. You really want this?
"See I told you so" is not much fun when you have a cardboard box over your head.
joculatorOct 10, 2010
Actually, if home prices decline sufficiently and the cost of putting a roof over your head becomes reasonable, I think the economy will improve significantly. I'm sure this would be the case for NY. The income to housing price ration that historically hung around 2.4% is severely distorted.
Not uncommon in Queens: http://newyork.craigslist.org/que/reb/1988889785.html
(and this home isn't located in a affluent area - rather "blue collar")
kalvinbOct 10, 2010
The issue is that banks are separating the deed from the title. They're forging foreclosure documents to hide the fact that they aren't entitled to your money because they don't own the loan you're paying on.
Foreclosures have to stop because the banks have to prove they actually own the loan you were paying on. If they can't do that then they can't foreclose on your home and you don't have to pay them for the loan since they don't own it or your house.
The people who actually bought the loan (but not the title) are up a creek because they were sold the loan without recourse meaning if they lose money that's just too bad and since they don't have your title, they can't claim your house back either.
You paying back the loan is the least of the amount of money that the bank is getting for your loan documents.
In short, it's a gigantic mess. What banks really have to do is give you all the money back you paid for the house and they get the house back since your contract with them (the loan) is null and void due to fraud on their part.
xophermvOct 10, 2010
Dude, don't bother talking sense to these people. They never change their minds. They live in a world where facts and information have a liberal bias. Faith in Republican leadership is more important to them than truth. They don't believe anything unless it's stated in Fox News or some right-wing website.
onreactOct 10, 2010
Who cares for consumers? The American people have to rescue the banks! I mean, can you imagine a life without banks? On the flip side a few more homelsess people, who really cares?
Sarcasm off.
For more info contact your local bankster.
iseagullOct 10, 2010
Leave a comment...
iseagullOct 10, 2010
wet
dpn48312Oct 10, 2010
Article is factually incorrect from the start. It is not that "the wrong people" were signing the foreclosures, it is that signatures were going on the foreclosures without anyone in authority actually knowing and certifying what was in the files to make the foreclosures valid. The result is that people lost their houses without cause.
gkiltzOct 10, 2010
The worst part is this:
Let's assume you bought a foreclosed property. You followed all the rules. did everything right. You went to a bank in your own community, that you knew had been there for decades, and did things right. They did all the research, and approved your mortgage. They did so knowing that they were issuing a mortgage on a property that had previously been foreclosed upon, and they saw no reason they couldn't.
Everything seems OK, at least for now.
Now, the previous owner, who was foreclosed upon, sues their mortgage holder, alleging that the foreclosure was improper. They seek return of the property. They win their suit, and the court orders return of the property! This may not happen in EVERY case, but it doesn't need to!
You and your bank both acted in good faith, and followed all the rules. You have the income and decent credit. ou had a decent size down payment.
You could be out in the street with NO RECOURSE at all. Your bank could be out the money they loaned you, with the only hope of recovery being an expensive, time-consuming sanity-wasting lawsuit against the original bank, which, by the time the suit can be settled, has likely been taken over by the FDIC, and likely folded into another bank.
xophermvOct 10, 2010
When you buy property from a pawn shop and later find out it's stolen it is your responsibility to return it. As for your money you paid to the pawn shop, you need to take that up with the pawn shop. Same principle here.
Closed AccountOct 10, 2010
"Now President Obama is refusing to sign a previously noncontroversial measure to have states recognize notarized documents from other states. Among other things, the bill would have streamlined the process of moving people out of homes they can't afford and therefore would have helped to allow housing markets to clear and begin to heal."
The bill mentioned would make it harder for homeowners to authenticate who is foreclosing on their home and why.
Normally this would not be an issue, except the banks own actions have called this into question.
xophermvOct 10, 2010
Hence the weasel-word "previously". Now the bill is controversial. And it makes sense for Obama to veto it.
Closed AccountOct 15, 2010
Multiple banks were sending duplicate documents to collect foreclosure fees, regardless who actually owned the loans. The Multi-State, Multi-National, Mega Banks realize that the only commonality in these duplicate foreclosure documents is the court that processes it.
If President Obama signed this law, it would remove the ability of local courts to review and read home mortgage foreclosure applications, and remove the last obstruction to filing multiple fraudulent foreclosure documents nation wide.
The Banks drove this crisis by selling loans w/o doing due diligence on the home owners and the Banks are now trying to take the practices and apply it to foreclosures.