The details have been released:
The Obama administration gave details of its massive foreclosure prevention program this morning, releasing guidelines for the program for the first time.
The program has two major components: a refinancing program for homeowners with little equity in their homes, and a loan modification effort for borrowers at risk of losing their homes. It is expected to help up to 9 million homeowners lower their mortgage payments.
“Two weeks ago, the President laid out a clear path forward to helping up to nine million families restructure or refinance their mortgages to a payment that is affordable now and into the future,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said in a statement. “Today, we are providing servicers with the details they need to begin helping eligible borrowers.”
I’m trying to find the actual guidelines online.
*** Update ***
Lots of links here.
Atanarjuat
I’m sure that President Obama’s porkularity will rise even further among freeloaders and irresponsible borrowers.
Bah.
-A
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
This is excellent news for McCain!
Studly Pantload, Would Be Minion of John Cole
@ Atanarjuat @ 1:
All fixed, ‘n stuff.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Must… not… feed… th’ muthafuckin’ troll……
Atanarjuat
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko:
I know, Ivan, how can you defend free handouts to the chronically lazy? There’s no credible refutation. President Obama is winning this spectacular porkularity contest, and Obama Juicers only clap harder.
I’m not surprised.
-A
chopper
@Atanarjuat:
yeah, those people working 2 jobs to cover their mortgages and keep outta foreclosure sure are fuckin’ lazy.
ChrisNBama
@John C. You can get the details here:
http://www.financialstability.gov/
The specific file is called "Making Home Affordable".
Cheers,
Chris
SpotWeld
Hypothetically:
Is this something Bush could have rolled out late Sept if he wanted to, or was the situation less devloped than and it’s only the timing of this crisis that has landed the responcility in the timeframe of the Obama adminsitration?
Studly Pantload, Would Be Minion of John Cole
@ Me @3: No! Not fixed ‘n stuff! There was supposed to be an unstricken quote of, "FIRST!" at the end.
Dang ol’ formattting doohickeys…
joe from Lowell
That’s what caused the financial metldown, the mortgage meltdown, and the deep recession: a dramatic increase in laziness between 2002 and 2007.
joe from Lowell
Attanut, what do you think George Bush and the Republican Congress did to make America so much more lazy during the period they controlled Congress?
cleek
right. the troll is fat enough, from all the pie it eats.
Punchy
Not sho how lowering mortgage payments are gunna help those who have no job. Who cares if your payments go from $1400/month to $1200/month when your income went from $5000/month to zilch?
Can we impeach Obama yet?
anonevent
Kirk Spencer
@Studly Pantload, Would Be Minion of John Cole:
And those of us who lost our jobs when the companies had to cut back.
And those people who got their loans due to lender fraud. (FBI estimate – 80% of all the fraudulent loans, loans that are to "irresponsible borrowers" – are due to lender fraud. They just didn’t have people to pursue given how the top level insisted their time be devoted to anti-terrorism investigations. And of course we caught THOUSANDS of terrorists…)
Atanarjuat
@joe from Lowell:
No, Joey, I don’t blame laziness on anyone or anything other than the lazy person himself.
Buying more home than you can afford, and seeking loans with no money down that you could never hope to keep up with in monthly installments is not my idea of responsibility and diligent behavior.
Now the bailout bums are bellying up to the bar, and Obama’s the welfare first, welfare always bartender that you all cheer on.
It’s really not that hard to comprehend.
-A
Studly Pantload, Would Be Minion of John Cole
@ Punchy @ 13:
I love the smell of Republican snark in the morning! It smells like . . . faxed talking points.
Kirk Spencer
@SpotWeld:
Hypothetically: yes. It would have required acknowledging the problem existed AND that government could spend as a solution.
In other words, hypothetically yes assuming Bush wasn’t the president.
canuckistani
Mass foreclosures will force people to live in their cars. Big North American sedans and SUVs will be the preferred choice, thus Obama’s plan is a slap in the face for the Big Three.
anonevent
@Punchy: This bill will not help people who no longer have a job. It is designed to prevent people from losing their homes that could make the payments if they could refinance to a fixed mortgage rate, or in some cases if the mortgage rate could be lowered a little. Part of the cost of the bill is that if a house is worth less than the value of the house, no bank will refinance.
SpotWeld
@Atanarjuat
I have to ask you.. how do you think people figure out how much "home they can afford".
A slew of new morgage products were devloped in pararllel with this housing boom, and a lot of folks honestly trusted thier real estate agent, or loan officer to tell them what the bottom line on what they were going to owe.
And as has been pointed out repeatedly, a lot of those "professionals" were just looking out for thier own bottom line.
In other words, you seem to be saying "Darn this ugly face of an economy, we should just cut those darn nose-like borrowers who are in trouble, that’ll show ’em."
chopper
@Atanarjuat:
buying more than you can afford is stupid, not ‘chronically lazy’.
i mean, by your logic you yourself are lazy as you refuse to do any due diligence in trying not to making yourself look like a moron every day.
Evinfuilt
Yay Me!!!
I barely make my payments, but because I do and its not to Freddie/Fannie I don’t qualify and get continue being on the edge of disaster day after day. So excited that those who got screwed from evil lenders/brokers and unable to refi due to foreclosures in the neighborhood, we get to stay screwed.
Or I can miss a payment, try and explain why and tada I get refi.
My bad for trying to survive.
gwangung
You better do more research; Freddie/Fannie doesnt have much to do with this plan and particular and the mortgage mess in general.
Zifnab
So, wait, are we getting the bankruptcy cram-down rules or not?
And I’m getting a little sick of hearing about people who just had to go through salary cuts or lay-offs being labeled "irresponsible". Oh shit, you say you didn’t save up enough money to pay off your mortgage in the event you got kicked into unemployment? Well, shame on you. :-p
joe from Lowell
No, Joey, I don’t blame laziness on anyone or anything other than the lazy person himself.
Which, once again, would require you to explain why "laziness" increased so dramatically under George Bush, if you really intend to go with "laziness" as an explanation for the mortgage meltdown.
It’s really not that hard to comprehend.
No, it’s not. In fact, it’s childishly simplistic – which is pretty good evidence that it’s wrong.
anonevent
@Evinfuilt: I almost fed the A-troll and wrote about how my trusting the lender to tell me whether or not I could afford the loan has made the last few years tough, but I deleted it at the end. I feel for you, but missing your payment would not help you get refinancing.
Having grown up all my life seeing people get advantages that I haven’t for doing less than I do – see GWB as a relevant example – I just have to keep telling myself that the great FSM will punish them later. Right now, refinancing allows them to keep their house, which means that they will pay their mortgage, which means more money back into the economy, which means more money that can ultimately be spent on my job, and therefore I can keep my job.
The reason the banks are fighting this is that all they want to do is keep everyone paying them as much as they can. If people have to choose between eating and their mortgage, the banks want them to choose their mortgage.
joe from Lowell
Evinfuilt,
Chances are, your loan is guaranteed by Freddie and Fannie, even if not owned by them, and you would thus qualify for the program. Talk to your bank.
valdivia
totally OT–the MSM had been billing the Brown speech as being pro free markets and it actually turns out that it is an impassioned plea for social democracy. Ha ha ha ha! The republicans have no idea how to react. Tooooo funny.
Don
I’m getting sick of hearing about people being irresponsible whether it’s true or not. We need to avoid a tipping point where there’s so many houses in foreclosure that they accelerate other houses in their area into foreclosure. We need to prevent huge swathes of neighborhoods from being abandoned buildings which contribute to crime.
This frothing anger and paranoia that someone might benefit who doesn’t need or deserve it ill-serves those of us who aren’t currently in trouble who would like to keep it that way. Maybe that fool went out on the mountain unprepared, but letting them fall and create a rockslide that takes the rest of us down isn’t worth "teaching them a lesson."
Walker
@joe from Lowell:
Not if he is a jumbo. Jumbos are screwed.
argh
Note that seditious scum like the commenting Goatblower that opened this fine thread never direct their spite and bile upwards, never to the Wealthy Banksters and assorted frauds.
No, spittle from the treasonous cowards that comprise the Right is always and forever for their fellow citizens. It is why they are traitors, and they should not be addressed for that reason. Being a "troll" is the least of it.
Country First.
Martin
Other than about 80% of those loans were made in violation of the Fair Lending Act. The remedy for violating the act is to bring the loan into compliance, which is basically all this plan sets about to do on a massive scale.
The banks are all (rightfully) blaming the brokers, but it was the banks responsibility to provide oversight to the brokers (part of that ‘get government out of our way’ deal) so there’s really no credible defense for them either.
Remember, the law says it’s the responsibility of the loan originator to ensure the loan is in compliance, not the borrower except in cases where the borrower lied about their income, etc.
Punchy
That’s a DAMN good analogy.
Martin
Jumbos are always screwed though. That’s the price of living in a high rent district (even in districts like mine where you couldn’t get more than a 1BR condo without a jumbo.)
You can’t save everyone, and I’d much rather see the government help 5-10 people in Detroit or Cleveland than one person in my neighborhood.
JL
@Punchy: It’s a silly analogy. If folks were told to pay cash for a home, our economy would be stuck in the 1930’s.
Good credit allowed us to develop a strong middle class.
Fraudulent credit allowed us to tank. I believe in personal responsibility and hopefully the President of Countrywide will be in jail soon! (oh yeah, that won’t happen)
Atanarjuat
@chopper:
Choppy, the chronically lazy part is in regard to those who expect others to bail out their worthless asses AFTER they overextended themselves so irresponsibly. Conversely, the non-lazy people would figure out how dig themselves out of their own mess instead of expecting an undeserved handout.
It’s that self-reliance thing that bugs liberals so much, I suspect. It’s hard work, and expecting a bailout is so much easier. Liberal Philosophy 101.
Little wonder President Porkulus has such high approval ratings among careless and shiftless homeowners.
-A
Atanarjuat
@argh:
Arghy, the lenders made the loans available; nobody forced the borrowers to take the money, nor did anyone compel said borrowers to behave so irresponsibly afterward.
This is like shooting fish with a bazooka. You libs make this too easy.
-A
Martin
Now, now, now, don’t be so hard on the banks, auto makers, and mortgage companies.
Martin
The law says that the lenders cannot give loans to people that don’t qualify. They broke that law in the majority of these cases.
Why are you opposed to the rule of law?
Incertus
@Atanarjuat: I guess it never occurred to you that shooting fish with a bazooka is a pretty fucking stupid thing to do, since it’s a waste of both a bazooka and the fish, and it leaves you a pond-soaked agnoid, covered in silt and algae and still moaning about how the bankers are completely blameless in all of this.
Atanarjuat
@Incertus:
Shooting fish with anything, in a barrel or any other container, is simply a metaphor, not to be taken as literal truth.
Incertus, I took you to be a smart individual. Was I wrong?
-A
JL
@Incertus: lol, Leave the "spoof" alone.
Incertus
@Atanarjuat: Oh, I get that it’s a metaphor–it’s just a particularly stupid one. It says far more about you than it does about the point you were trying to make.
bootlegger
@joe from Lowell: It was all the arm chair war-watching. It’s hard to be productive when you’re cheering on Our Boys from the lazy boy position.
Atanarjuat
@Incertus:
In other words, you took the metaphor literally instead of comprehending why I even used such imagery.
I’m disappointed in you, Incertus. I was under the impression that you were more perceptive than this. Next time, just ask me to clarify any of these confusing metaphors, similes, or analogies that I might use to illustrate a point, and I’ll break out the box of crayons for your benefit.
I’m always glad to help out.
-A
bootlegger
@Atanarjuat: Attanut, I took you to have 2 brain cells to rub together. I was definitely wrong. But hey, y’all keep blaming the financial crisis on the public, I’m sure that is playing well with the electorate and a sure path to the Next Republican Permanent Majority.
Hail Rush!
bootlegger
@Atanarjuat: Actually doofus, he tortured your weak-ass metaphor to point out that you accomplished nothing with your lame attempt to put us down. Everyone here knows they are smarter than you and you come back here time after time for a thrashing. Which of course explains the prevailing theory that you are actually a spoof, since no one could truly be so stupid and masochistic at the same time. But who knows, the Republican party is falling to new levels of both every day.
Atanarjuat
@bootlegger:
I know, booty, the collapse of the housing market is directly attributable to the unalloyed greed of the descendants of Mr. Potter, who want to make George Bailey’s nightmarish, alternate universe into reality.
There’s no other explanation other than evil bankers who are trying to impoverish all of us little people into soul-crushing Pottervilles.
Because, you know, that’s what wealthy people and corporations with money to lend do every morning: figure out ways to screw all the hapless Davids for the benefit of Goliath’s bottom line.
It’s all so ridiculously obvious. Even Incertus has figured this out.
-A
Kirk Spencer
Atanajurt,
When I bought my first house, I did some research. The question I was researching was a simple one: how much house can I afford? I knew I could borrow multiples of my annual income, and prior to this purchase the most expensive loan I’d taken was for college (with my car loan coming slightly behind).
As a significant part of my research, I asked industry professionals. These individuals are licensed and regulated. Now since my industry also happens to be licensed and regulated, I assumed that the same principles applied – that while there might be exceptions, most of the professionals would work at least nominally in the interest that, while they’d try to get as much from me as they could they would not set me up for more than I could afford – that would result in them losing money.
The process worked. It worked every time I purchased a house – right up to the last one I purchased. It had been a decade since the last purchase, and I knew rules and laws changed. I got a concensus value that was SIX TIMES MY ANNUAL INCOME!. The only reason I boggled, however, was the prior house purchases. If this was my first time, then based upon the various advice manuals in the libraries and magazines and professionals, I’d have used that number as my cap for house searching.
No, I don’t blame the first-time homebuyers for buying more house than they could afford. Frankly I’m not sure I blame those on their second homes, either. Not when every reference you examined discussed what your cap should be – and that had you buying more than you could afford.
As others have already stated – in lender situations, the law says it’s the lender’s responsibility to know when an amount is ouside the borrower’s means PROVIDED the borrower did not commit intentional fraud. As I’ve noted more than once, the FBI’s preliminary survey indicated that about 80% of the "too much house" purchase – at least that which can have criminal fraud involved – is lender fraud, not borrowers lying.
All these facts have been laid before you, and you still want to blame the borrowers?
right. To "Hyperbole, exaggeration, and insult," we can also add "factually challenged."
TenguPhule
Rampaging through GOP halls with AK-47s blazing sounds like a plan then.
Free Food, Rent free housing, Defense on the Public dime and best of all, Less Republicans bitching.
TenguPhule
Yeah, you shoot, miss by a mile and the fish just look at the idiot.
Bornin61
Kirk,
I agree with you. I have experienced a similar situation. I had figured out what I could truly afford and the RE agent and lender said I could do almost 2X that number. No way! I stood firm and am in a house I can make payments on. I hate the idea of over regulation but unfortunatley money maker brings thieves that prey on those you don’t take the time (or don’t know how) to figure out what we did – what we can afford. They take the word of the "experts" and later find out they are in deep trouble. So, we do need some regulation to protect people from themselves and the bad advice of these "experts".
I got a new car loan yesterday, at a great rate because I was careful with all the other borrowing I did. Most weren’t and they were"sold" to take on more and more debt. Call it lack of responsibility, stupidity,naivety, whatever – there’s no way to regulate that so the othe option is better rules to prevent people that fall in those categories being mislead. Sad that it would have to come to that though. The responsible are being punished as they have seen their assets drop like a rock becasue of all this. What is that teaching our children?
Wile E. Quixote
@At A Tuna Jar
So does your outrage extend to AIG, who wrote billions in CDS that they knew they wouldn’t be able to cover if the market went south? And then, when the market did go south, ran to the government and whined and cried and said "please, oh please bail us out?". If not why?
neff
How come so many people think this plan involves Obama giving a free house to everyone who can’t afford their mortgage payments?
How are they missing the part where the people will still have to pay back the freakin’ loans?
Atanarjuat
@Wile E. Quixote:
Thank you for bring up AIG, Quixey. I absolutely agree that they’ve turned into a bottomless money pit that is increasingly demanding more with little to no return.
Guess who just extended them yet another multi-billion dollar lifeline? And you somehow think that Republicans are solely to blame for this economic quagmire that we’re all sinking in?
Throwing good money after bad is a recipe for deepening the recession and hastening the arrival of an actual depression, Quixey. You don’t stop the bleeding by ripping the wound open further (the 75 billion dollar gift to irresponsible homeowners).
-A