"Our journey is not complete"Obama says

**canesfan804** · 01-22-2013, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

I don't know what he has for retirement. Dude is retired and loaded. He has half a million in cars in the garage; doubt he's worried about social security regardless of when he gets it.

Just going off what YOU stated.

**canesfan804** · 01-22-2013, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

yes the home owner should eat it. They agree to buy that house for that dollar amount. The house didnt change its still the same size, still the same age. They got what they bought.

So if a house loses value and is under water the home owner should be able to walk away because they didnt get what they bargained for.

Same as buying a car, just a smaller scale. So if I decide I dont like my car anymore and its under then I sould walk away and let the bank eat it with Dans reasoning.

**canesfan804** · 01-22-2013, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

it wasn't an investment; its his home. the home owner should eat it because the banks don't care that they are selling foreclosures/short sales for pennies on the dollar? Its the banks that are driving prices on homes down. They don't care if they sell a house for 1/10th of the mortgage balance owed because they file an insurance claim on the difference and the bank loses nothing. In turn- it drives prices on comparable homes in the area down the toilet. Why would someone ever buy your house for $100k when they can get the house across the street for $15k? You're damn right- the bank should eat it... But they aren't... They file insurance claims to recover their losses. Regardless- the bank is sticking it to the home owner every single time. Even if you don't dump your house- you're still getting fvcked by the banks. Keep it and you have to wait 10 years to find out if you can ever recoup what you have into your home... Not the bank.

exactly!!!

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by canesfan804

Same as buying a car, just a smaller scale. So if I decide I dont like my car anymore and its under then I sould walk away and let the bank eat it with Dans reasoning.

No no no no.... there's a huge difference between a cars depreciation from use and some outside source coming from the outside and stripping the value. Using your analogy with the car it would be more like you bought the car and the dealership started selling every other car on the lot for half of what you paid for yours the day after you bought it.

**canesfan804** · 01-22-2013, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

Gixx... The banks are the ones that created the problem, and are compounding the problem today with short sales/foreclosure fire sales. No home owner could take a loan that did not exist. THE BANKS CREATED THE LOAN PROGRAMS. Home owners took what was offered and if you notice; all the banks had the same loans. Home owners played the banks game that THEY created.
you said for yourself that you cousin has a conventional loan so they did exhist. Banks didnt make anyone get a ARM!!! It was a option that had a risk to it.
Furthermore- the banks are the ones causing the significant plummet in the market value of homes. They are selling foreclosures at pennies on the dollar just to get rid of them and not have to deal with maintaining an empty house; as well as approving short sales. Yes, home owners agreed to buy a house that had a specific value. Now, when that value significantly drops because of someone else's influence why is it the home owners responsibility to eat the deficit? Who in their right mind would sign up for that? Yes, the insurance company should eat it because you as the home owner are the one paying the premium to the insurance company; not the bank. Its called PMI (PRIVATE mortgage insurance).

You don't make any logical sense in your argument with this one. You're essentially saying that its okay that banks are doing what they are doing to home owners and every home owner should eat shit without the banks even being held accountable. Name ONE thing that our government has done to hold banks accountable? Nothing- Obama wrote them a check and saved them from going under. The federal government insures the banks. How does any of that help the home owner. To date; the only thing banks have done is issue an 800 number for a home owner help line where you have a bunch of trained people answering the phone following a protocol and a script both which were written by attorneys.
No one ever said banks should not be held accountable. We are saying that people like your family members are no better then the banks. He could make the payment and decided it was better for HIS bottom line to let it go. Banks are just doing the same thing. Furthermore did your cousin own a home prior to buying the 600k home? When he sold that how much did he make off the guy that bought it? Did he give that back since he made $$$ on that home BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSES INFLUENCES... You are the one not making sense.

What needs to happen is people need to start suing the banks one by one... but not enough to cause a class action because then nobody wins but the lawyers. Most people can't do that though because they can't afford the legal fee's associated with that kind of battle and banks have in house attorney's. So- again the home owner can't win.

Thats the American way, just sue them. Thats another reason this country is F'ed because of clowns like you who always want to sue.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by canesfan804

Thats the American way, just sue them. Thats another reason this country is F'ed because of clowns like you who always want to sue.

I've never filed a lawsuit in my life. What are you talking about? Would I if someone else cost me money because of their doing; hell yes. You're essentially saying that a bank is "okay" to take money out of your bank account as they please? What's the difference- is it fake money because until you sell you don't realize the loss?

**gixxerboy1** · 01-22-2013, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

Gixx... The banks are the ones that created the problem, and are compounding the problem today with short sales/foreclosure fire sales. No home owner could take a loan that did not exist. THE BANKS CREATED THE LOAN PROGRAMS. Home owners took what was offered and if you notice; all the banks had the same loans. Home owners played the banks game that THEY created.

Furthermore- the banks are the ones causing the significant plummet in the market value of homes. They are selling foreclosures at pennies on the dollar just to get rid of them and not have to deal with maintaining an empty house; as well as approving short sales. Yes, home owners agreed to buy a house that had a specific value. Now, when that value significantly drops because of someone else's influence why is it the home owners responsibility to eat the deficit? Who in their right mind would sign up for that? Yes, the insurance company should eat it because you as the home owner are the one paying the premium to the insurance company; not the bank. Its called PMI (PRIVATE mortgage insurance).

You don't make any logical sense in your argument with this one. You're essentially saying that its okay that banks are doing what they are doing to home owners and every home owner should eat shit without the banks even being held accountable. Name ONE thing that our government has done to hold banks accountable? Nothing- Obama wrote them a check and saved them from going under. The federal government insures the banks. How does any of that help the home owner. To date; the only thing banks have done is issue an 800 number for a home owner help line where you have a bunch of trained people answering the phone following a protocol and a script both which were written by attorneys.

What needs to happen is people need to start suing the banks one by one... but not enough to cause a class action because then nobody wins but the lawyers. Most people can't do that though because they can't afford the legal fee's associated with that kind of battle and banks have in house attorney's. So- again the home owner can't win.

And by your advice home owners are continuing the issue. So a home owner stops making payments to buy the house across the street. Now their house get foreclosed on and drives the other houses down more.

2nd it doesnt matter if the house is under water or not. The home owner didnt loose a dime unless they sell it at that price. So if its their home like you said. They are living in the house they bought making the monthly mortgage payment they agreed to, nothing has changed. They haven't lost a penny. And if they lived and paid on like they agreed who knows what the home values are going to be in 10 or 15 years. So because they theoretically lost money on paper. They dump the house and fvck the economy more.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

And by your advice home owners are continuing the issue. So a home owner stops making payments to buy the house across the street. Now their house get foreclosed on and drives the other houses down more.

2nd it doesnt matter if the house is under water or not. The home owner didnt loose a dime unless they sell it at that price. So if its their home like you said. They are living in the house they bought making the monthly mortgage payment they agreed to, nothing has changed. They haven't lost a penny. And if they lived and paid on like they agreed who knows what the home values are going to be in 10 or 15 years. So because they theoretically lost money on paper. They dump the house and fvck the economy more.

Really- well I lost almost $60K on my 401k... is that not real money because I'm not 55 yet and can't touch my 401k? I should say "oh okay, in 10 years maybe some assholes in wall street will put my $60K back"? Get outta here with that shit. Its ALL liquid assets, cash, equity, etc. Taking away equity in my home is no different than pulling cash out of my bank account through the ATM. What your saying is that the loss isn't realized until I sell my home; true. BUT.... your assuming that its okay to be forced to live in the house you bought 5 years ago because sooner or later you'll break even. No- I don't like the fact that because of the banks doing; I'm forced to stay in my home regardless of what situation would make me have to move. I dunno... maybe I get a new job and have to relocate; oh I can't because the bank fvcked me by short selling my whole neighborhood? The bank is forcing me to stay in a home because its underwater regardless of what I need to do for my own life. What's next Gixx... are they gonna tell me what size clip my gun can hold? Oh yea... that's in progress. But... I can rent my house right and if wait 20 years I *might* break even, lol.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:14 PM

And for the record; I haven't owned a house in 3 years. I'm renting and will continue to do so because the housing market is a joke. I have not lost any money on any of the houses I owned in the past and the banks never got the chance to fvck me.

**canesfan804** · 01-22-2013, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

I've never filed a lawsuit in my life. What are you talking about? YOU SAID SUE THEIR ASS!! I DIDNT SAY YOU HAVE SUED ANYONE... Would I if someone else cost me money because of their doing; hell yes. You're essentially saying that a bank is "okay" to take money out of your bank account as they please? What's the difference- is it fake money because until you sell you don't realize the loss?

....

**canesfan804** · 01-22-2013, 05:28 PM

How about your cousin did he own another home before the big 600???

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:28 PM

Damn right sue their ass. Do you not realize that as of today- the banks have had NO PENALTY for all the shit they've pulled? None. You think the "fines" they paid mean shit? Those amounts are rounding errors and the cost of doing business when you compare how much profit they made off writing bad mortgages in the past decade. You get home owners suing the bank left and right; you actually hurt them and take money out of their profits. You wanna hurt Bank of America- you take money from their bottom line and that will change their stock price and market cap. THAT will hurt; nothing else does.

**gixxerboy1** · 01-22-2013, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

Really- well I lost almost $60K on my 401k... is that not real money because I'm not 55 yet and can't touch my 401k? I should say "oh okay, in 10 years maybe some assholes in wall street will put my $60K back"? Get outta here with that shit. Its ALL liquid assets, cash, equity, etc. Taking away equity in my home is no different than pulling cash out of my bank account through the ATM. What your saying is that the loss isn't realized until I sell my home; true. BUT.... your assuming that its okay to be forced to live in the house you bought 5 years ago because sooner or later you'll break even. No- I don't like the fact that because of the banks doing; I'm forced to stay in my home regardless of what situation would make me have to move. I dunno... maybe I get a new job and have to relocate; oh I can't because the bank fvcked me by short selling my whole neighborhood? The bank is forcing me to stay in a home because its underwater regardless of what I need to do for my own life. What's next Gixx... are they gonna tell me what size clip my gun can hold? Oh yea... that's in progress. But... I can rent my house right and if wait 20 years I *might* break even, lol.

Yes you should, Because YOU signed a contract. So you defaulting makes you worse then them. Yes they maid shitty mortgages. PEOPLE took them. The bank wouldnt have offered them if people werent taking them. And then the PEOPLE defaulted on them. Everyone isnt a victim of the bank or wall street.

You dont want to loose money in a 401k? Then put the money in your mattress. It seems your fine with the housing market, 401k's as long as your making money. Neither of those things is guaranteed to increase in value. You should know that going in. And if your not willing to take that risk then dont do it. Rent then dont buy. Nobody forced anyone to buy a home. The bank isnt forcing you to stay in the house. You can sell it, you just owe them the balance on the mortgage that YOU agreed to pay.

People need to take responsibility for themselves.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by canesfan804

How about your cousin did he own another home before the big 600???

Yes, one other (a condo) and the 600K house isn't anything special. That's what housing costs in some markets; it isn't a mansion. Its a simple 3 bedroom 2 bath house in Chicago but that's the cost of living in the city. A crack house is 200k around here.

**gixxerboy1** · 01-22-2013, 05:32 PM

whats next then Dan, The people next door dont cut their lawn. or maybe another one paints their house an ugly color. Are maybe some foreigners or minorities move in down the block. They build some power plant a few miles down the road. Now your home value dropped. So do you flake out on your mortgage and screw the bank then?

**warmouth** · 01-22-2013, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

So in my opinion, your in-laws should dump their 550K house and buy one across the street for 280K and THE BANK should eat the difference because they are the one that caused the value of the 550K house to plummet. If the banks started writing home owners checks for the deficit they caused with all these fire sale foreclosures and short sales; house prices would go back up. Its the banks having the fire sales, and the only people getting burned are the home owners that still keep their home and pay their mortgage.

But if the banks did that, they would be right back where they were, looking for a hand out. I totally see where you are coming from. It chaps my butt, but the government made that choice, not the people. It does suck, but feasibly, what do we do? Elect another president?

**warmouth** · 01-22-2013, 05:39 PM

Well ill say it...if you can afford it, buy now. Just saying. A potental fortune is to be made. Why do yall think that drs are the leading buyers of real estate at the moment? Cheap property and an uncertain healthcare plan. Buy!

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

Yes you should, Because YOU signed a contract. So you defaulting makes you worse then them. Yes they maid shitty mortgages. PEOPLE took them. The bank wouldnt have offered them if people werent taking them. And then the PEOPLE defaulted on them. Everyone isnt a victim of the bank or wall street.

You dont want to loose money in a 401k? Then put the money in your mattress. It seems your fine with the housing market, 401k's as long as your making money. Neither of those things is guaranteed to increase in value. You should know that going in. And if your not willing to take that risk then dont do it. Rent then dont buy. Nobody forced anyone to buy a home. The bank isnt forcing you to stay in the house. You can sell it, you just owe them the balance on the mortgage that YOU agreed to pay.

People need to take responsibility for themselves.

Well where or where is your beloved president obama to protect "the people"?! I mean hell, the government is insuring the bank from losses. Where's the citizens insurance in investing in our economy and believing the bullshit obama spews during his speeches? These assholes at the banks and on wall street fvck over the citizens of this country and the government does nothing; but the banks and wall street get a bail out? Isn't the governments purpose to protect the people? How did the government protect all these home owners? They didn't... they protected the banks. Even worse- they did it with the citizens money. Do you know that the debt per person in the US is almost $53,000.00? That's how much debt the government has in their deficit... $53,000 per US Citizen.

A majority of the people in this country do not have the financial security or assets to take a loss- period. The average savings of most citizens is less than $4,000.00. You put the average citizen $20K in debt you are destroying them. Negative equity is exactly that- a hammer to the head because IF something happens in a persons life where they MUST sell they are destroyed financially.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

whats next then Dan, The people next door dont cut their lawn. or maybe another one paints their house an ugly color. Are maybe some foreigners or minorities move in down the block. They build some power plant a few miles down the road. Now your home value dropped. So do you flake out on your mortgage and screw the bank then?

actually yes- people sue their neighbors all the time for shit. there are also home owners associations and by laws you must abide by to guarantee that if some weirdo comes in he can't paint his house purple and destroy the sub. I got sued my association because of the type of fence I put in violated the by laws and I lost. Same thing goes for condo's. There are also zoning laws preventing power plants from being put up a few miles down the road.

**gixxerboy1** · 01-22-2013, 05:44 PM

Why do you want the Gov. to insure the people isnt that socialism?

**gixxerboy1** · 01-22-2013, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

actually yes- people sue their neighbors all the time for shit. there are also home owners associations and by laws you must abide by to guarantee that if some weirdo comes in he can't paint his house purple and destroy the sub. I got sued my association because of the type of fence I put in violated the by laws and I lost. Same thing goes for condo's. There are also zoning laws preventing power plants from being put up a few miles down the road.

you get my point though and alot of places dont have HOA,

I'm done, You want everyone else to be responsible the banks, the government but the average citizen can screw people over and that's ok, and you think that has no consequences on the economy.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

Why do you want the Gov. to insure the people isnt that socialism?

No... the government should be insuring the citizen from losses created by enterprise and wall street. The government should be reviewing the loan offerings from all these banks BEFORE they are on the market so what happened could have never happened. The banks simply should have not been able to write these unicorn loans they did for the past decade. Wall street should have never been able to pull the shit they did tanking everyone's 401k's. That is called regulatory oversight. Its not the citizens that need the oversight... its the idiots on wall street and the banks.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

you get my point though and alot of places dont have HOA,

I'm done, You want everyone else to be responsible the banks, the government but the average citizen can screw people over and that's ok, and you think that has no consequences on the economy.

No- I want the people (banks, wall street) that caused this shit; to pay for it. You wanna short sale a house, fine... give the home owner what he paid for it out of your pocket. That's what the government should be telling the banks. That, or reduce the principal balance to the fair market value of TODAY because you are the one that caused the drop, not the homeowner.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 06:05 PM

What everyone fails to realize is that you can do everything right. You can work your ass off, own a home, pay your mortgage on time, live the "American Dream".... and then some assholes in a board room at a bank or on Wall Street; can literally take away everything you've worked for with NO REPERCUSSIONS... none. AND the US Government will back those assholes losses so they don't actually lose anything... and if your lucky social security *might* still be around when you retire. Welcome to the United States.. leave your AR-15 extended clip at the door and pay your taxes.

**gixxerboy1** · 01-22-2013, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

What everyone fails to realize is that you can do everything right. You can work your ass off, own a home, pay your mortgage on time, live the "American Dream".... and then some assholes in a board room at a bank or on Wall Street; can literally take away everything you've worked for with NO REPERCUSSIONS... none. AND the US Government will back those assholes losses so they don't actually lose anything... and if your lucky social security *might* still be around when you retire. Welcome to the United States.. leave your AR-15 extended clip at the door and pay your taxes.

That's life there is no guarantees. And u want everyone to protect ur interest while your promoting people to screw the banks. Fix yourself before u blame others

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

That's life there is no guarantees. And u want everyone to protect ur interest while your promoting people to screw the banks. Fix yourself before u blame others

There's a difference between "no guarantees" and someone TAKING from you. A business (the banks) is TAKING the equity you should have in your home by THEIR actions. The bank short selling, foreclosure sales, and so on is what is depressing the housing market. It wasn't "Bob" that tanked his houses value.... it was the bank foreclosing on Bob's neighbor and selling the house for nothing just to not have to deal with it like maintaining the yard. THAT is what is killing housing. To banks having an empty house they are responsible for is a liability so they sell it for nothing and fvck the whole neighborhood.

Yes- I want to put Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and the rest of them under. I want them to pay out of their profits for their mistakes... just like I have to pay out of my wallet when I make a mistake. I wanna see their market cap and stock price go in the toilet for THEIR BAD BUSINESS DECISIONS. Where am I wrong in that?

**gixxerboy1** · 01-22-2013, 06:22 PM

And the reason they are foreclosing on Bob is because he didnt pay his mortgage. Tell Bob to pay his bills and it won't be an issue

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

And the reason they are foreclosing on Bob is because he didnt pay his mortgage. Tell Bob to pay his bills and it won't be an issue

Actually- incorrect. A majority of the foreclosures are either bad loans THE BANKS WROTE or people walking away with no other option due to economic downfall. Nobody wants to just walk away from their home but when you have no other choice; you lose the banks don't give two shits and neither does the government. There are a few people (like my uncle) who will walk away and move across the street but that's because those people typically are financially secure and see their home as a bad investment and its called 'taking a calculated loss'. You know your screwed no matter what so which way hurts less. At 50+ years old, you don't care about credit. You care about not having to go get a job again after you retired and credit isn't going to help you there.

**canesfan804** · 01-22-2013, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

No... the government should be insuring the citizen from losses created by enterprise and wall street. The government should be reviewing the loan offerings from all these banks BEFORE they are on the market so what happened could have never happened. The banks simply should have not been able to write these unicorn loans they did for the past decade. Wall street should have never been able to pull the shit they did tanking everyone's 401k's. That is called regulatory oversight. Its not the citizens that need the oversight... its the idiots on wall street and the banks.

How much do you think it would cost for a govt agency to review ALL loans. Cmon Dan you are wrong on this one.

**canesfan804** · 01-22-2013, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by dan68131

Actually- incorrect. A majority of the foreclosures are either bad loans THE BANKS WROTE or people walking away with no other option due to economic downfall. Nobody wants to just walk away from their home but when you have no other choice; you lose the banks don't give two shits and neither does the government. There are a few people (like my uncle)WTF DAN IS HE YOUR COUSIN OR UNCLE?? YOU FN TROLL!! who will walk away and move across the street but that's because those people typically are financially secure and see their home as a bad investment and its called 'taking a calculated loss'. You know your screwed no matter what so which way hurts less. At 50+ years old, you don't care about credit. You care about not having to go get a job again after you retired and credit isn't going to help you there.

Im done with you troll.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by canesfan804

How much do you think it would cost for a govt agency to review ALL loans. Cmon Dan you are wrong on this one.

Review ALL loans... no you misunderstand. I mean the loan products themselves offered by banks. Not each individual loan application. For example, the terms of a 30 year fixed loan. The government should be reviewing the terms for qualification, terms for repayment, etc. After all... the government is backing these loans you would think they care what they are insuring.

**dan991** · 01-22-2013, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by canesfan804

Im done with you troll.

Actually its both. Both my uncle and my cousin live there. My uncle is the owner on title. My bad for associating the house with my cousin (my uncle's son) as that's typically who I am going to see when I go there. Regardless.. its a stupid detail that is irrelevant in anything other than you are using it because you cannot argue the facts in any of my other posts. Your entire argument is based on morals, and ONLY your belief's. Well, guess what.. your belief's mean jack shit to anyone other than you.

As far as troll... do you even know what that term means? Google it. I've been here oh... almost a DECADE longer than you.... and anytime I'm "trolling" its rather obvious. Typically I'm "trolling" to get 405 or Lunk wound up, and even sometimes Gixx... but to most with common sense they see it and respond accordingly. You apparently aren't capable of determining logical discussion from someone being facetious- and when you start to get your ass handed to you; you resort to name calling as you argue with nothing but emotional response to your belief's.

So.. if you want to call me a troll simply because I'm handing you your ass in this discussion and you cannot retaliate with anything logical beyond your own emotions... okay...