Post User Polls

Is a national moratorium on foreclosures a
good idea?

Amid growing furor over the legitimacy of foreclosure proceedings, Democratic leaders in Congress have called on major lenders to halt all foreclosures nationwide. However, the White House and the Federal Housing Finance Agency have said they do not support such a moratorium, but instead are urging banks to verify that paperwork was filed properly. Read the full article.

By Abha Bhattarai  |  October 5, 2010; 4:16 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Should the school day be extended? | Next: What is to blame for the rise in income inequality?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Why would any one pay their mortgage if they cannot lose their home?

Posted by: AxelDC | October 5, 2010 4:42 PM

I feel like I am being punished for never being late in paying my mortgage.

A upside down mortgage at that!


Seems like its better to just walk away and be cash rich as I could save away from living for mortgage free.


Posted by: HURICARDO | October 5, 2010 4:53 PM

For those who might not fully understand, the banks are--in some cases--foreclosing on people who've never missed a payment. Really. Amazing but true.

That's one problem.

They're also foreclosing on people who've successfully modified. Sad, but true.

And finally, yes, they're foreclosing on people who've just quit paying.

Posted by: MichaelATX | October 5, 2010 5:17 PM

Something needs to be done. I lost my family home, I had to put it up on a short sale, if they investigate and find irregularities the mortgage company needs to get my property back for me. Losing my family home (of four generations - my great-grandfather and great-great grandfather both fought in the Civil War, in the same Regiment - my great-grandfather enlisted when he was 17 years old). Losing our family home has been horrifically stressful, what the banks did and are doing (foreclosures) is undermining our countries traditions and values. To make matters worse my child is missing, and is one of the missing children included in the 9/9/10 printing of the U.S. Postal Services "POSTAL BULLETIN", and Postmasters are not displaying the monthly printed Missing Children Notices, as they are required (not just of my child, but every missing child that's been included in the monthly printings of the Missing Child Notices of the POSTAL BULLETIN since 1985). I've personally been into every Post Office along Hwy 101 from Astoria to San Francisco and only one Post Office had the Missing Child Notices displayed as the written instructions describe, and friends of mine have now been into over 3,000 Post Offices throughout the country and have discovered only one other Post Office that the Post Master actually does their responsibility and displays the monthly printed Missing Child Notices in the "box lobby" and in the workroom floor area. The monthly Missing Child posters are suppose to remain displayed for 30 days, then removed for the next months printing. My missing child's poster was suppose to be displayed in every Post Office (all 32,741 of them throughout the country, since the 9/9/10 printing of the POSTAL BULLETIN). The potential for locating my child (or any Missing Child) is greatly jeopardized by the Postmasters failure to do their job, regarding their responsibility to follow the written instructions for displaying Missing Children Notices for this vital National Program (the NALC/USPS Child Alert Program). Both the irregularities, regarding home foreclosures and the failure by the U.S. Postal Service in doing what they're suppose to do to make an important National Program function as it's intended, needs to be opened up to formal inquiry by Senators and Congresspersons, immediately. This is not something that can be put into committee for years - my missing child, and other Missing Children's lives are being put on the line.

Posted by: teramiabullfrog | October 5, 2010 5:57 PM

i have been dealing with JPMorgan Chase for 31months and I finally sent in the REST REPORT, thanks to,the report shows what the investor would lose if they foreclose and in 98% of the time it shows the investor would loose a great deal if they foreclosed!People check out the REST REPORT(HAMP) the lenders don't want this out!!

Posted by: awj500 | October 5, 2010 7:19 PM

Why would people pay their mortgage if they couldn't lose their home? Well, the vast majority would pay their mortgage in order not to completely trash their credit rating.

Posted by: dolph924 | October 5, 2010 11:56 PM

I really dont think that we are looking for a free ride. I want to save my home and I have been asking for help since 3/12/07. I wasnt behind. I am now. I would rather have my job back of 16 yrs. And not have to worrie every day how I am going to pay my bills.
I lived on the streets for 2 yrs and I wont go back. I have lived in my little home for 15 yrs and I will NOT loose it. I will fight till my death!
For me to have to wait for almost 4 yrs, sending 100s of forms back and forth, loosing my forms and what ever ealse they come up with is so wrong.
I have contacted Gov.OMalleys office, the white house. And thank God the Gov. office called me. But I am still fighting for my home.So many, too many, are being forgotton.

Posted by: nitareed59 | October 6, 2010 7:32 AM

This is an extremely complex subject and the ramifications for a nationwide halt to foreclosures are not understood. 99.9% of the people in this country do not have the legal or economic expertise to comment on this issue. I frankly do not think issues like this should be the subject of a popularity poll.

Posted by: Afraid4USA | October 6, 2010 7:33 AM

How Fannie and Freddie can Fix the Economy -- Quickly

Please forward this to every decision maker you know.

The issue: Housing is killing the Economy

The Insight: Short Sales are Artificially Increasing Supply (lowers prices) with no offsetting increase in demand (further lowering prices)

Why? Most short sellers DO NOT want to sell their home they want to stay (if the payments were affordable) thus they are not looking for a new home absent being forced to sell short. Under Fannie and Freddie rules when they do sell short they are FORBIDDEN from BUYING for 2-5 years. Thus in Florida alone perhaps 500,000 to 1 million homes are artificially on the market and that same 500,000 to 1 million buyers are NOT in the market

The solution: Fannie and Freddie fund the transaction costs of converting short sales into debt-for-equity swaps (please see which explains how).

What happens: The existing loan is converted to three pieces: a loan for 80% of current value (which will be current since the homeowner will pay) on the same terms as the original loan, a zero-interest loan for 20% of current value (essentially the current equity above the 80% loan), a PARTICIPATION interest in future appreciation

Liquidity: the participations can be pooled and sold as securities, the zero interest loans can be pooled and sold as securities, once the 80% loans have been current for 12 months they too can be pooled and sold as securities

Immediate benefits: perhaps 2,000,000 homes exit the marketplace, and on those homes the mortgages will become liquid and performing in 13 months which helps the banks which wrote the loans

This is a BUSINESS solution to a business problem which has been corrupted by politics.

Posted by: lissack | October 6, 2010 8:31 AM

Many of these people have been living in their houses for years without making a payment. The sooner the houses can be foreclosed the sooner the market will finally correct and home sales will start to increase as home prices will become more affordable for people who can actually make the mortgage payment. This move of Pelosi's is pure politics.

Posted by: pgroan | October 6, 2010 8:48 AM

@all the idiots complaining about people living "rent free": This is about following the law. What's your problem with requiring banks to follow the law? Why do you have no problem with banks forging signatures and documents? Do you believe anyone should be able to commit fraud on the court without penalty? Do you believe in THE RULE OF LAW?

And before you start your pathetic, let's-bail-out-the-banks-yet-again rants, ask yourself this question: What happens when the wrong bank forecloses, and then the bank actually owning the mortgage, shows up and demands the property?

Hate to rain on your Teahidist, hate-the-little-people parade, but this is a very real problem. Banks have foreclosed on homes with no mortgage, ones purchased for cash. Sorry, but you can't close your eyes, say "Sarah Palin loves me" three times and see the problem go away. This is reality, not Rick Santelli Teahadist delusion.

The morons ranting about people living in homes for free have no understanding of the legal system. They are pathetic shills for the banks, advocating yet another bank bail out.

Posted by: Garak | October 6, 2010 9:08 AM

Nice to see that all the teabagging morons here would rather see innocent people screwed than big corporations lose some of the profits they were counting on getting with phony paperwork. Oh, I forgot, corporations are people, too. God you people are imbeciles.

Posted by: daweeni | October 6, 2010 10:37 AM

Maybe we should ALL stop paying our mortgages.

Who knows, if the bank makes a paperwork mistake, we might get a free house!

Of all the thousands of foreclosures, it seems that if they make a mistake on one, it would be easier to rectify that one than to hold the entire country hostage by stopping all foreclosures.

Mostly, this is just giving false hope to people who haven't been making their payments.

Posted by: Benson | October 6, 2010 11:08 AM

Like many other people, we have seen the value of our home plummet faster than we can pay down our mortgage. This is largely because of the huge number of foreclosures being dumped on the market. I would be happy to see a moratorium because it would limit the increase in unsold inventory and most likely keep values from falling further.

Posted by: ancient_mariner | October 6, 2010 11:46 AM

Banks and judges have already proceeded to resume foreclosures. It is unfortunate that some people cannot see that there is a lot of greedy lawyers and politicians who are on their way out the door that are trying to use this to their advantage.

The banks should answer to any inaccurate information they present in court but until that has been established they need to proceed with this to clear the backlog.

Posted by: GenXer1 | October 6, 2010 12:32 PM

No. Stupid is as stupid does. People who can't afford mortgages should go into foreclosure. BUT, the criminal bankers who loaned these people money that they could not repay should be given looong Jail time.

Posted by: sameolddoc | October 6, 2010 8:06 PM

Nowhere does it say when you buy a house the value is guaranteed to go up. Learn to budget and buy what YOU can afford. Just because a bank says you qualify for 300K doesn't mean you have to take that much. Also once all the paperwork gets sorted out the folks who haven't been paying will still lose their homes.

Posted by: FLvet | October 7, 2010 9:12 AM

"Who knows, if the bank makes a paperwork mistake, we might get a free house!"

Forging documents in a court case is not a "mistake," it is a felony. But maybe you don't think big banks should have to obey the law. Sure, corporations should have the same rights as a person, just not the same responsibilities. And the tea party is considered a populist movement? You poor suckers.

Posted by: chaos1 | October 7, 2010 10:47 AM

the dems are behind all of this...
and they are going to make things worse...
this is all part of destroying America...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 8, 2010 6:45 AM

Good for President Obama. It is time we had a president who was more interested in protecting the rights of ordinary people than the rights of the big corporations. There is a reason the big corporations, including foreign corporations, are dumping money into GOP campaigns under the guise of the Chamber of Commerce.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | October 8, 2010 9:58 AM

They want to create another artificial bubble its a banking scam to hurt you. If you can't pay your mortgage you lose the house. By the results of this poll I think the majority of you are retarded. The explanation is bunk.

Posted by: scrushmaster | October 8, 2010 11:05 PM


Your dumb. Do you expect anyone to believe a bank can break the contract and foreclose on you if your not paying? Unless your such a moron you signed a contract that said they could, which in your case I wouldn't put it past you.

Posted by: scrushmaster | October 8, 2010 11:11 PM

All of you that are losing your homes... Are losing them cause your either A) Bad with your money (this is 98% of you) or B) Very unlucky.

Posted by: scrushmaster | October 8, 2010 11:14 PM

" Losing my family home (of four generations - my great-grandfather and great-great grandfather both fought in the Civil War, in the same Regiment - my great-grandfather enlisted when he was 17 years old). "

That is one long mortgage. I would have expected it to be paid off by now.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | October 9, 2010 1:00 AM

I am a Republican and almost Teabagger..that said this is RIDICULOUS... THIS IS FRAUD we are the party that stands for family values. Of what value is splitting up families and ENDORSING FRAUD .... these loans are toxic, were targetted and in many cases not clean. THE FRAUD started there, the mortgage was sold.. often before paperwork ever signed. THE LOAN has been been paid off 10x over. Not only that FRAUD in the foreclosure alone is enough to kill all deals. all bets off. WHEN banks LIE CHEAT and steal it is bad. READ the depositions by the bank employees. Did you know your "loan" might be owned by a foreign corp??? The amount of fraud and lies and cheating and JUDGES ALLOWING IT IN THEIR COURTS is beyond the pall.

Posted by: alrady40 | October 9, 2010 1:31 AM

Some sort of a deal ultimately needs to be worked out.

Obviously banks should not be foreclosing on properties that they do not hold lawful title for. In many of these cases it sounds like the banks never bothered to file the necessary paper-work, but someone still extended a loan for the purchase of the property.

One possible work around is "grand bargain" that incorporates a cram-down measure as part of a resolution -- something which the banks have fought tooth and nail against (e.g. a measure that restores the U.S. bankruptcy code to its 2005 status, which provides relief for those homeowners who are indeed in bad straights and need to file for bankruptcy to stay in their homes).

The banks don't want to recognize the losses on their books now, but it's delusional to think that some of these home values will recover any time soon. A cram-down forces the banks to eat some of the losses without getting entirely wiped out.

As part of the deal some sort of accommodation could be worked out to give the banks some time to get their paper-work in order. Given the scale of this crisis it might take years, but there may be some way to simplify the process.

In the meantime this is going to be a litigator's dream. A bunch of these firms and banks should be held accountable for their negligence -- and potentially fraud -- and some higher ups at these banks probably deserve to go to jail. Of course, some poor schmucks will probably be thrown to the lions, but hopefully those who benefited the most from this scheme are the ones who ultimately pay the price. This is much, much worse than the Savings and Loan scandal and some clear red-lines need to be put in place so that we can avoid these kind of problems for at least a couple generations. The fact that we're having an even bigger scandal within just one generation is a travesty unto itself.

Posted by: JPRS | October 9, 2010 4:32 AM

A "foreclosure freeze" is just another socialist program to avoid personal accountability.

The rhetorical question I have for all of the 'victims' of this is: During the boom times - how many people were forced to sign a contract? How many people bought a house because they were under duress?

ANSWER: NO ONE! If you bought more house than you can afford - it's your own flippin fault! Nobody said 'Buy this house or else...'

Next: How many people were less than honest in documenting your income - just to get that bigger house? How many people 'rounded up' when stating thier salary/wage? How many people bought houses whose monthly costs would easily exceed the '36% percent' guideline? (And if you DON'T KNOW what the 36% guidline is - you don't have a clue about personal finance.)

BOTTOM LINE: A foreclosure freeze is only going to artifically inflate the market (bad for the economy long term), punish people who didn't do anything wrong (bad for responsible people trying to buy a foreclosed property & those trying to get back on their feet), reward irresponsible people (why pay the mortgage if I know the bank can't foreclose), punish the banks (long after the company who underwrote the loan has repackaged it and sold it).

The good sides for a 'foreclosure freeze' is: It gets votes, it serves the irresponsible (90%) and unlucky (10%), it serves the government (keeps real estate taxes higher), punishes an inanimate entity (the 'bank' doesn't have a vote; irresponsible borrowers do) and it redistributes wealth (by taking from businesses and responsible people and rewarding irresponsible people who got themselves into hot water).

Posted by: Disbelief | October 9, 2010 5:53 AM

Obama's HAMP program is one of his dumbest and most clost to date. It is his way of buying deadbeat voters.

He told Americans, the banks gave you a loan you knew you couldn't afford, yet you took it anyway. You defaulted on your loan, but 10% - 15% of American are too stupid to calculate their worth to debt ratio and deserve a tax funded bailout.

A mortgage is a two-way street. It can't be executed unless TWO parties agree to the terms.

The only things a foreclosure freeze will do is extend the artificial inflation of housing values, and stall the inevitable for the deadbeats who expect the rest of us to bail them out and will go to foreclosure anyway - just later.

FYI about 85% of American homeowners are paying their mortgage payments on time.

Obama is turning the housing industry on its ear, rather than allowing it to self-correct naturally ... for 15% of America's homeowners. Does anyone else see how absurd this is and how responsible Americans are being taken to the cleaners AGAIN by this knee-jerk reactionay ideologue?

Posted by: asmith1 | October 9, 2010 6:04 AM

Harry Reid wants only to look like the Lone Ranger, riding in to save the day, when he helped support the policies that created most of the foreclosures. He is sickening.

Posted by: meinsenkaye007 | October 9, 2010 6:11 AM


If a bank has a legitimate claim on a property it should be able to use legally valid documents that show it holds clear title. It should not resort to the use of fraudulent documents.

In multiple cases -- perhaps thousands -- if not tens of thousands of instances -- the banks have been caught using documents that appear to be fraudulent.

If it's "socialist" to insist on the use of valid legal documents in a U.S. Court of law, then we've been a socialist country since well before the enactment of the Constitution.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Legal standards of evidence matter in a free society.

Posted by: JPRS | October 9, 2010 6:36 AM

It's worth adding that legal standard of evidence SHOULD matter in a free society.

Unless apparently a person is a Republican.

In which case, the use of fraudulent documents is OK.

Posted by: JPRS | October 9, 2010 6:37 AM

Something important to note here - one of the biggest paperwork problems being found is that banks failed to record mortgages with the county. What I haven't heard anyone talk about is what happened to the money that buyers paid to have that done (recordation fees charged at settlement). More dollars in the banks' pockets? I'd like to see that reported on.

Posted by: jjtwo | October 9, 2010 7:00 AM

First, there is little financial reason for a bank to foreclose on a property unless they feel they have to. They make money on mortgage payments, they generally lose money if they foreclose. Even if there was a filter in the job market that caused all evil, immoral people to go work in the mortgage departments in banks, they still want to make money.

Second, the reason for the problem with foreclosures has nothing to do with the foreclosure itself. The issue is that the tie document tie between the mortgage and the official title is lost (or at least attenuated) as mortgages are bought and sold.

The problem here is the antiquated titling process in this country, encouraged to be in place by title attorneys and other companies who make money off the process.

Finally, everyone should be worried that the cure here is much, much worse than the disease.

If lenders cannot legally do something about people who do not pay their mortgage payments, then they will not issue mortgages. If they do not issue mortgages then no-one can buy a house (or sell a house).

AND if no-one can buy or sell their houses easily, their house values will drop even more than they have so far.

AND FINALLY the net impact to the economy could take it back into a deep recession or worse.

All in the name of consumer protection.

Posted by: thiscapfan | October 9, 2010 8:26 AM

A foreclosure freeze? Sure, if that's what it takes to assure that everything is done properly. But no, if it's just another tactic to prop up the housing bubble. Home prices need to be affordable. And that means much lower prices in many areas. That's when homes will once again begin to sell, and that's when the economy will begin to improve.

Posted by: John991 | October 9, 2010 8:28 AM

Some people are living rent free in their homes waiting for the forclosure and subsequent eviction. I personally know of two: one a relative and the other a friend. In both cases, the parties stopped paying the rent. One, because of loss of income and the other because it's a "smart business decision (underwater by about 50%)". One of them has not made a mortgage payment in more than 18 months and was supposed to be foreclosed up this month. I suspect that he's about to get another 6-12 months rent free.

It galls me that, because there were some questionable foreclosures that people are now calling for a complete stop to foreclosures. That's throwing out the baby with the bath water and, in the end, only invites more people to stop paying their mortgages.

The banks should be allowed to continue with foreclosures as this is a normal activity. Sure, the banks should much more closely scrutinize the paperwork before moving forward. But once they're sure that the title cleanly reflects their mortgage lien and that they can establish the the mortgagee is, in fact, behind in their payments, there's no legitimate reason to stop the foreclosure.

As for the millions of foreclosures that have gone before this, if the homeowner really was wronged, then they should get an attorney and sue the bank. It's that simple. If this issue of bogus foreclosures is as large as some people would have us believe, there will be plenty of good sharks -- er, lawyers -- flocking towards the blood in the water.

Posted by: JoStalin | October 9, 2010 8:29 AM

Due diligence is expensive and most of the people who put these deals together preferred to just skim the transaction fees. As it turns out, not doing due diligence is expensive.

Posted by: SarahBB | October 9, 2010 8:37 AM

First, the Post's bias is showing in the way the poll is structured. If you give a long rationale for one side, the other should have an equal elaboration.

The politicians and journalists again fail the public. The sound bite of "mortgage moratorium" doesn't inform. According to CNBC's real estate expert, the vast majority of foreclosures are on properties that are about 18 months behind on payments. If so, foreclosures aren't a matter of the bank taking a property away from someone for missing just a couple of payments. One-third of current home sales are of foreclosed homes. What will be impact on housing market and those who were lined up to buy a foreclosed home?

Just as one evaluates the cost and value of a purchase (car, tv, whatever), what are the implications of a moratorium? Real estate agents don't collect fees? If mortgages aren't being paid, who (if anyone) is paying property tax? Cost to local governments? Are local governments forced to cancel services and/or reduce employment due to lack of tax revenue? Will taxpayer have to pick up even greater losses thru fannie & freddie? There are assertions of problems with foreclosure process but what are the facts? If banks have erred, then they need to be held accountable, but can we have facts in lieu of election year posturing?

Posted by: RichardCollins | October 9, 2010 8:42 AM

Let these deadbeats take the consequences.

Posted by: ravitchn | October 9, 2010 8:45 AM

I agree. Let's put some million or more angry Americans on the street. That'll teach'em a lesson.

Reap all the compassion you can for YOUR failures, but let everyone else be punished severely for theirs. Gotta love the Old Testament "Christian" folks. Whata country!

Posted by: therev1 | October 9, 2010 8:48 AM

The federal government, through a process of attacking bank's "redlining"--banks refusing to lend money to geographic areas that they thought were bad investment choices--forced banks to lend money to those areas. Then, in l999, this process expanded under Pres. Clinton--and banks were forced to take on even more loans that were questionable--even when they were concerned that the applicant could never pay the loan back or even make payments. To take the pressure off the banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two huge quasi-government mortgage entities, took up the slack and bought many of those questionable loans from banks. This process continued until--the bubble burst--and now the American taxpayer will likely be out $500 billion, minimum, to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (we've already given them $140 billion).

One would think that this inane process would have been halted. But no, under the Democrats, this nightmare is continuing--under the guise of "fairness" or some such. There is some resistance--even Barney Frank (D-MA), who supervised the mismanagement of Fannie and Freddie, and still does, as head of the House committee in charge of these mortgage giants, now says that they should be abolished. But they are still there.

The problem now is that even when the government has rescheduled payments for some of those who have bought homes and couldn't pay for them (wasting another $50 billion in some silly housing plan under Obama), most of those loans still collapsed as the buyers still couldn't or wouldn't pay even those reduced payments.

Thus, as a result, we have housing stock that the buyers can't pay for and those who want to buy them, and get the vast housing inventory and the situation corrected, cannot buy them because of the foreclosure freeze now being pressured--by the federal government.

If you ever wanted to know how the federal government can screw up the economy--and then continue to screw it up over and over again--the housing crisis is a perfect example to study. Get the government out and let the free market clean up the problem. And stop throwing our taxpayer money down a rat hold.

Posted by: SherlockHolmes | October 9, 2010 9:21 AM

It seems to me that we are failing to make a distinction between two kinds of cases.

Cases where the homeowner is irresponsible and the bank has the right to foreclose. And the other kind of case where it is the bank which is being too harsh.

Unfortunately, deciding between these two kinds of cases requires a judgment call and we have difficulty coming up with laws which try to address this problem.

If the banks win in congress then irresponsible homeowners will get a free ride. And if the banks lose in congress, they will get a free pass to penalize homeowners who might have missed one or two payments.

If we could get away from the two extremes, we might make some progress. But our adversarial political system tends not to look for compromise.

Posted by: rjpal | October 9, 2010 9:37 AM

" Losing my family home (of four generations - my great-grandfather and great-great grandfather both fought in the Civil War, in the same Regiment - my great-grandfather enlisted when he was 17 years old). "
That is one long mortgage. I would have expected it to be paid off by now.
Posted by: Ombudsman1
Surely you can borrow money on a house which you own entirely. A house could have been in your family for a hundred years but the mortgage is only ten years old which is when you borrowed money using a mortgage on a house which you owned outright.

Posted by: rjpal | October 9, 2010 9:44 AM

A foreclosure moratorium, for about ten or 15 years, or longer if necessary, would be a very good idea, considering millions of American homeowners are making far less money (if they are making any at all) than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Consider the millions of good-paying jobs lost over the past 10 or 15 years. The only people prospering in this economy are the war profiteers. Why should most Americans be forced to pay for wars we don't want that will never end? We should at least get to keep our homes.

Posted by: paulinlodi | October 9, 2010 9:56 AM

Right now millions of deadbeats who should not have received mortgages in the first plate squat in homes they do not own, cannot afford, do not keep up, and cannot be evicted from. Another untold several million used their homes as piggy banks to go on self-indulgent spending sprees. By "unfair" I believe what is meant is that some nicety of red tape wasn't observed before the button got pushed to clear homes for sale to financially responsible buyers.

Posted by: greg3 | October 9, 2010 9:59 AM

And if so many, if not a majority, of these deadbeats didn't belong to protected ethnic groups, who have issues with impulse control, morals, and economic literacy, I'm sure Obama would have casually signed this foreclosure law.

Posted by: greg3 | October 9, 2010 10:05 AM

Stopping the foreclosure process is profoundly stupid.

It is bad, bad, bad economic policy. It will extend the recession.

This is about as dumb a move as Obama can possibly get. I understand why the Democrats are interested in doing this stupid thing, and I'm happy to know that they will pay dearly in the future.

I just hate seeing anyone do something so darn stupid.

Posted by: ZZim | October 9, 2010 10:07 AM

A moratorium on foreclosures is an excellent and important idea. The foreclosure situation (as well as the mortgage situation) is one of the most massive and widespread cases of perjury and fraud ever.

Most of the unaffordable mortgages were predatory and only accepted by the borrowers because the mortgage originators steered and lied under the incentive of huge bonuses for producing predatory mortgages.

Wall Street thought it could get away with ignoring centuries of law and numerous procedures and fees involved in recording and changing mortgage holders. That can work as long as nothing goes wrong. But the laws are there for when things go wrong. Wall Street arrogantly thought it could get away with falsifying papers and perjury on affidavits to cover up the fraud.

A lot of people need to go to jail and to disgorge their fraudulently earned bonuses. The moratorium will help the prosecutors get their act together to criminally indict the perpetrators and for the civil court processes to figure out what to do about all the massive fraud.

Posted by: StanKlein | October 9, 2010 10:12 AM

Like almost everyone, I don't really have the information to know whether or not a foreclosure moratorium is a good idea. But the fundamental reality is that the consequences of failed government policies have left us with an economic wreckage that is very difficult to clean up. It can't be cleaned up without a major investment of time and human effort. But the investment in cleaning up the wreckage inevitably has to be subtracted from any investment that might be made in getting our economy moving again. Inevitably there is going to be a tradeoff between the size of the investment in cleaning up the wreckage and the quality of the job that is done. But, jobs never get done without deadlines and there usually is a point of diminishing returns from more investment of time and effort. Unfortunately, the real tragedy is that we have not learned the lesson about the cost of bad government policy. With widespread encouragement, the Federal Reserve seems to be intent on doing as much as it can to repeat the process of the last economic cycle and stimulate the bad investments that can litter our economy with yet another large load of wreckage.

Posted by: dnjake | October 9, 2010 10:14 AM

Foreclosure crisis–economic constipation

the utter failure of the obama regime

to recognize

the foreclosure crisis is systemic economic threat

has resulted in economic constipation

as the backlog of foreclosed homes bought due to dodd/frank
fannie mae idiocy

will destroy both new construction and

home sales for those seeking to retire

Posted by: ProCounsel | October 9, 2010 10:52 AM

Some posters are making a valid point that many people might simply refuse to make their mortgage payments if there is a moratorium. However, most responsible people believe in paying their debts regardless, and few people will want to risk ruining their credit. Also, the moratorium isn't permanent.

Yesterday, the Post printed an article about a foreclosure where the homeowner didn't even have a mortgage! The problem, it appears (if you've actually read the article) is that managers were signing off on foreclosures without reading the paperwork. The result is many, many mistakes have been made, and people who have never missed a payment are facing foreclosure. This needs to cool down at least until the mess can be sorted out.

Also, to the people who say "just don't buy a home you can't pay for:"

Some people are in trouble because they've been out of work for 2 years or more.

Some people are in trouble because they own business that have tanked due to the economy.

Some people are in trouble because they had a plan to sell in a certain time frame (e.g., retirees), and their property values plummeted, first in the original downturn, and then again as huge numbers of foreclosures occurred in their neighborhood. Let's face it: in the old days, if you had a balloon mortgage and you'd made all of your payments on time, it was a routine procedure to reset the mortgage to a conventional one. Nowadays, that just isn't happening.

Most of the people in the above situations were considered a good risk and qualified for conventional (not subprime) loans. I would also bet that many put down 20% or more to avoid PMI, and had additional savings. Maybe some were living beyond their means, but certainly not all.

To the people who are being so judgmental, talk to your relatives who were struggling during the Great Depression. Don't be surprised if some of those pillars of responsibility admit that they had trouble making their mortgage payments.

Posted by: carlaclaws | October 9, 2010 10:56 AM

There never should have been any foreclosures.

Most all of the loans were entrapment. Baloon loans with terms ment to default within a fews years. The lenders did not verify incomes and inflated the incomes that were approved. All of the appraisals were highly inflated.

The ulterior motive here is not to save homeowners who are in default and are going to lose their home. Hail no! It is never about protecting consumers and taxpayers. Don't be nieve. This is in preparatiion for another bank bailout--after the upcoming election, of course. People are not buying and the banks have too many properties that they can't lquidate and make a profit. Once they get heir bailout, the properties will be liquidated and the people who are in the homes will be out.

Give amnesty to all of he remaining homes in default. Re-negotiate the loans at today's value and today's income so that payments are affordable (even if it takes 0% interest, since that what banks get free money for) and extend the loan to up to 50 years if needed.

This was not the fault of consumers! It is the fault of the most corrupt and careless and greedy government in the world!

Posted by: maphound | October 9, 2010 10:57 AM

Its one thing to stop foreclosures on people who fell on hard times, lost a job due to the economy and are living modestly. Its quite another to stop foreclosure on those who intentionally went into something beyond their means and then when the mortgage rate adjusted upward after 5 years and they found they really couldn't afford it, they should lose it. They entered into the contract. In no way should taxpayers have to pay for this debacle...but we will...either through higher housing interest rates for the next 5-10 years or someother secondary effect from this debacle.

Posted by: dmahon | October 9, 2010 11:00 AM

There is another class of investors facing foreclosure now as well: people who refinanced during the good years to invest in the stock market.

After all, the conservative financial press and pundits were insisting the rise in property values wasn't an anomaly, and they were also predicting that the Dow was going to keep surging. Not exactly the safest bet, but I doubt very much that many of these people were the ghetto dwellers with subprime mortgages that so many people blame for the crisis.

I know some of these people; they are, for the most part, white Republicans. They, too, give the impression of being pillars of fiscal responsibility, and I'm sure they never dreamed they could end up upside down and broke.

My point is not that they shouldn't have to face consequences; rather, it is that the number of people facing foreclosure is so large now that it is crippling the housing industry, in upscale neighborhoods as well as "bad" ones. So more jobs will be lost, and eventually, if they aren't reined in, we will see that many more foreclosures.

Heck, in this economy, with hindsight, one could say that anyone who took out a mortgage and didn't reserve enough liquid assets to buy the house outright was being irresponsible.

Posted by: carlaclaws | October 9, 2010 11:07 AM

why am I always paying for irresponsible peoples' mortgage?

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | October 9, 2010 11:11 AM

Yeh...let the banks suffer by holding property that people stay in yet pay no mortgage on. They helped create this mess. And I may just stop payment on my mortgage to if the foreclosure proceedings are in limbo.

Posted by: matrox | October 9, 2010 11:23 AM

For those who might not fully understand, the banks are--in some cases--foreclosing on people who've never missed a payment. Really. Amazing but true.

That's one problem.

They're also foreclosing on people who've successfully modified. Sad, but true.

And finally, yes, they're foreclosing on people who've just quit paying.

Posted by: MichaelATX | October 5, 2010 5:17 PM
Hmmmm...hmmmmm...lemmee see now...seems then the thing to do then would be to FORECLOSE ONLY on those who have just quit paying.

Posted by: matrox | October 9, 2010 11:28 AM

I'll make essentially the same comment I made on another story. To me, the need to even discuss moratoriums makes it clear how much we need reasonable regulation which requires banks to keep a significant percentage of every mortgage they make. We also need regulation on derivatives and other large-bank cons to rip off the middle class and destroy the economy.

There is no good alternative with moratoriums. A large group of people lose either way. So let's avoid getting into this situation again. Let's go back to the way it was when I was growing up. Banks kept most of the mortgages they made, so they had a vested interest in loaning money to people who were likely to be able to pay it back.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | October 9, 2010 11:29 AM

Well, I think the banks should do away with the foreclosures and simply sell the properties out right for half price to people like us posting here on this site since we are all very responsible citizens who have the means to take the properties and sell or rent them out and get them back on the tax roles. Sounds like a win win situation for all and eliminates the red tape.

Posted by: matrox | October 9, 2010 11:34 AM

When I bought my place I was paying my mortgage to my mortgage holder, 3 months later I get a letter saying I am now to pay my mortgage to Wells Fargo. I knew then that these tricky banking SOBs had sold my Mortgage. 2 or 3 months after sending payment to WF I get a notice saying I am behind in my mortgage so I call them up and they admit that they show the missed payment coming in but no record of the check being cashed in other words the check was lost by them. Yet no one informs me of their careless stupidity until they are just about to submit my name to the collector. Yep WF are some sloppy basterds. I ended up paying over the phone with my checking account info. And the basterds had the nerve to blame me because they said I should have checked my checking account to confirm the check had been cashed. To Hell with WF. Let them fail too.

Posted by: matrox | October 9, 2010 11:46 AM

A moratorium on foreclosures is a VERY bad idea. In general I think we need a paradigm-shift in how we address the foreclosure crisis: away from trying to prevent foreclosures, and towards trying to mitigate the damage they do to neighborhoods.
Imagine you bought a house you could afford, with a traditional mortgage. You pay it like clockwork every month. But then your neighbors go into foreclosure. Now you live next door to a bank-owned property. There's a big white and red sign that says 'FORECLOSURE'. The grass grows up. The paint starts peeling. Broken windows aren't fixed. Your neighborhood gets more crime. Your house loses value. You might even find yourself upside-down in your own mortgage.
If the moratorium happens, I foresee a lot of half-foreclosed homes sitting vacant. They won’t be listed in the tax records. They won’t have realtor’s signs out front. It’ll be near-impossible to enforce city ordinances on them. And you can forget about enforcing local deed restrictions on them.

Posted by: Houstonian2 | October 9, 2010 11:56 AM

This is a good discussion. But lets go back to how this all started. Banks over inflated the values our these homes to make more profit. There was fraud by deception on their part. And most of us cannot even comprehend that the borrowers funded their own loan, just by signing and a promise of future labor. Banks take zero risk and leave us hold the bag.

Posted by: robertponte | October 9, 2010 11:58 AM

Amen to Matrox. How do we as a society succeed when we punish the responsible and reward the irresponsible (or, as someone noted, the unlucky)? It's called "moral hazard." You get less of the behavior you punish, and more of the behavior you reward. Let the forclosures proceed, let housing prices fall. People who bought houses as a place to live won't worry about the paper value -- they bought a place to live, they didn't make a temporary investment. Provide buying opportunities to those who were prudent, who rented and saved a sizeable downpayment. Their demonstrated prudence will stabilize the housing market that was destabilized by speculators and risk-seekers (who now aren't risk-accepters) who couldn't afford the house they bought. I know, I know: what about those who lost their jobs? Unfortunate, but if, as usually sufggested, they had a 3-6 month reserve before they bought (there's that 'prudence' thing again), they might not now face foreclosure.

Posted by: bernie_attorney | October 9, 2010 12:00 PM

About 8 years ago I aquired 2 houses to renovate and rent out. I got the houses pretty and was able to pay off the mortgage quickly on both. I renovated one and rented. Then Bush came along and F'ed up the whole world economy. Did Bush really hurt me? Know because I had all my ducks in a row. Did Bush slow me down...yes. I had planned to renovate the second house into a brand new house for resell. Now thats on hold until the economy gets better. The only ones who benefited from this Fiasco are the Bush's and the likes of them. Hail..rumors are now even going around that Bush's old ENRON buddy Ken Laye is not even really dead, but is underground with a new identity.

Posted by: matrox | October 9, 2010 12:00 PM

"Its quite another to stop foreclosure on those who intentionally went into something beyond their means and then when the mortgage rate adjusted upward after 5 years and they found they really couldn't afford it, they should lose it."


I don't understand how an Adjustable Rate Mortgage can reset upward when interest rates are as low as they have ever been. I don't think those people knew they couldn't afford the homes. They were steered into predatory mortgages that "adjusted" upward regardless of the interest rates.

The mortgage companies lied to the borrowers about their affordability to sucker them into the predatory loans. The loan officers were given bonuses to issue predatory loans. Many of the people qualified for prudent mortgages and could afford them, but Wall Street made more money by screwing borrowers than by making boring, prudent loans.

On top of that, the desire for predatory loans was also driven by the possibility of selling investors insurance on the securitized loans in the form of credit default swaps. That was where the big bucks and big bonuses came from.

The whole thing was a monstrous fraud. The chickens are now coming home to roost, because they are trying to cover up the fraud by more fraud and perjury. However, they are running into hundreds of years of real estate law and recordkeeping that they thought they could ignore.

MERS is the same kind of book entry recordkeeping structure that Wall Street uses for stocks and bonds. But real estate law requires careful paperwork and recording fees and a lot of things that Wall Street found inconvenient and that cut into their fees, profits, and bonuses. So they thought they could just ignore the laws. Well, it turns out they can't and that they had to pile on more fraud and perjury to try to get around the laws. Well, now they are caught and the true dimensions of the mess are becoming clear.

Posted by: StanKlein | October 9, 2010 12:13 PM

The only argument for a moratorium is to prop up, temporarily, the market value of homes not in foreclosure, to prevent a precipitate decline. Further declines are ineluctable. Over-stimulated decade after decade, the "Ownership Society," the Great American Dream Scheme, has gone bust.

Buyer beware. A moratorium will not float underwater homes; will not make them affordable to those who cannot afford them. On the whole, a moratorium only serves banks holding oceans of bad paper needing to offload inevitable losses on a fresh round of buyers (aka suckers) who mistake current market levels for bottom.

Posted by: washpost29 | October 9, 2010 12:13 PM

The point is to force the banks to properly evaluate every single situation before initiating foreclosure, rather than having them more or less automatically signed off ... in some cases by a computer. The point is not necessary to let deadbeats off the hook. There has even been one foreclosure action against some guy who paid cash for his house! There needs to be a long line of bankers standing in line to get into a federal pen for this fiasco. Nobody has benefited from this except for the bankers. Not the homeowners, and not the investors who were passed worthless paper.

Posted by: Catch1 | October 9, 2010 12:15 PM

Sleezy outfits like Dovenmuhle Mortgage, which neither mortgages property, nor loans money for mortgages, are a case in point.
They 'Service Mortgages' for the convenience of the financial institutions, and do the WET WORK (Weild the KNIFE) for them, whenever they want.

Posted by: laurelphoto | October 9, 2010 12:18 PM

I like how the Post slants poll questions to get the answers it wants.

Posted by: Bitter_Bill | October 9, 2010 12:34 PM

Why I have no pity on people being foreclosed on:

(1) They used a funny loan to buy a house they otherwise could not afford. That's right: they've been able to live a life that is much nicer than they otherwise would have. They lived a life of lies -- they are essentially no different than credit-card millionaires.

(2) By bidding prices up with these funny loans, they locked responsible people out of buying.

(3) Obviously when the loans recast to a rate that is more realistic, they can no longer afford the house. BUT, they can afford to rent an apartment. These folks might end up being houseless, but they won't end up being homeless. They just be living we're they would have been living in the firstplace.

(4) Besides living in a much nicer place, they've also gotten all sorts of tax breaks that are not available to those that rent. I'd be pretty steamed if I still rented.

(5) Freezing foreclosures breaks contractual law. Who would want to make a loan or do business if the government changes the rules on a whim? Mass walk-aways have the possibility of completely cratering the financial system.

(6) Foreclosures lower prices, leading to affordable housing for the financially responsible.

Posted by: steve1231 | October 9, 2010 12:53 PM

Things should not have come to this.
The demorat pols should never have urged banks to make low money down loans and have Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac buy the bad mortgages. Just another demo vote buying scheme.

Posted by: 1uncle | October 9, 2010 2:49 PM

The issue here isn't that there are too many foreclosures (as some commentators seem to think).

The issue is that banks have been found using FORGED and FRAUDULENT documents in a wide-spread manner suggesting systemic problems with their record keeping.

Essentially you clowns are saying that banks should be able to take possession of properties that they DO NOT LEGALLY OWN.

In many instances the banks might actually have a claim to the property, but it's not asking much that they produce a legal title and VALID NOT FRAUDULENT documents in court as part of the proceeding.

Essentially you are saying that this wide-spread fraud on the part of banks is OK because . . . I'm not really clear why.

Posted by: JPRS | October 9, 2010 5:20 PM

Hello, I am one of those imbecile Tea Party members, and as far as I know, the Tea party has no official position on this or any issue, as there is nobody who has the authority to make such pronouncements. Tea party members come together because they want to carefully study candidates and issues before they vote, and they want representatives who are just that. One of the most common phrases I hear at Tea Party meetings, is "We were asleep at the wheel, but we are not any more." Which is very true. I observe people who are carefully studying the issues, candidates, short and long term effects of both. We are in various stages of our education in our quest to become informed citizens. So if I am ignorant, I apologize in advance.

It seems to me here that the most sensible thing to do is to establish strong penalties for lack of due diligence in foreclosure proceedings. As I understand the problem, this is not happening to the level that one would expect from professionals, and if they insist on proceeding recklessly, they should know that they will ultimately be held responsible for their recklessness, and will be required to pay restitution plus penalties. If they break the law, I believe the system has methods in place to deal with that.

There is no getting around the fact that many people will lose their homes simply because the can not afford them. By prolonging the inevitable, we are increasing the probability that those who would have otherwise been fine find themselves dragged down because of the worsening economic conditions. Uncertainty is your enemy right now, as are pandering politicians desperate to save their own hides first. Grand gestures got us into this mess, now we need boring, thoughtful, bean-counter types to carefully extract us from it.

Posted by: jenniferbugenator | October 9, 2010 7:38 PM

This is the wrong question. The question should be: Can someone take your home can not proof they own title to your home?

Posted by: ListenToOthers | October 9, 2010 10:52 PM

The really sad cases are those who played by the rules but have lost their home. Didn't over-extend themselves financially, paid the mortgage on time but then lost their job. That must be crushing.

But I don't feel sorry for anyone else. Most households these days have two incomes, so if one person is out of a job, there is still an income---plus unemployment benefits.

Also, many people decided it would be stupid to pay on a mortgage that is more than the house is worth. One's credit rating is not that important in these situations so they just walk away.

Posted by: MrBethesda | October 9, 2010 11:23 PM

I agree. And the way the question is posed is idiotic. The bottom line is people are not going to be awarded houses they aren't paying for. It is just going to take longer to sort that out, which means this is mostly a waste of time.
This is an extremely complex subject and the ramifications for a nationwide halt to foreclosures are not understood. 99.9% of the people in this country do not have the legal or economic expertise to comment on this issue. I frankly do not think issues like this should be the subject of a popularity poll.

Posted by: Afraid4USA | October 6, 2010 7:33 AM

Posted by: Vze2sr66 | October 10, 2010 1:16 AM

A lot of people post opinions with no facts. Facts do not mean much to some American's these days. Sad state we are in!

According to these people, everybody is a deadbeat but them.

This is the main reasons big business can freely move high paid jobs to low wages countries because their have the support of many cheerleaders that post to this site that totally dislike American workers.

Read the post on this site, you can tell the people I am refering to!

Posted by: ListenToOthers | October 10, 2010 2:30 AM

This is simply one more example of democrat vote buying. Who cares about the repercussions, we'll just let all of you stay in homes you're not paying for and you will vote for us.

Posted by: thebink | October 10, 2010 8:00 AM

I would like to address those of you who are in foreclosure and KNOW you cannot afford the house you are living in. Especially those of you who feel you are owed something by the taxpayers just because you signed a mortgage you KNEW you could not afford.

A national moratorium on foreclosures is a BAD idea. It will only delay the inevitable foreclosure proceeding and allow deadbeats to stay in their home for FREE for a longer period of time. This will cause a massive bottleneck in the foreclosure system. It will also allow many deadbeat 'homeowners' to live off the taxpayers for longer periods of time while the taxpayers suffer the consequences.

This massive bottleneck of foreclosures is exactly like constipation. Until the foreclosures get put through the system, the economy will remain constipated. I'm sure you get the point unless you're one of those people who think they are owed something for nothing -- like a free place to stay while the rest of us pay mortgages or rents.

Want to know what the consequences will be for ALL of us (including those of you who think you are gaming the system)? The consequences will be further economic deterioration and rampant INFLATION (which is on its way) to pay for all this money printing. You think the economy is bad here in the recession-resistant DC area? Wake up. It's not nearly as bad as it is going to get. Imagine continued high unemployment coupled with double digit inflation and you will start to get my point. ALL of us -- and I mean ALL of us, are going to work harder for LESS money in the near and long-term future because of this mess.

Back to the deadbeats who feel that they are owed something for nothing. The documents that you signed at closing were in PLAIN ENGLISH. You obtained a LOAN. A loan means you must PAY IT BACK. I'm constantly amazed at how many folks have deluded themselved into thinking a good life is OWED to them. Sorry, but you are wrong. If you want financial security, it is as simple as LIVING WITHIN YOUR MEANS and not running out to buy a house just because you could sign a liar's loan like all the other deadbeats.

Posted by: gateway1 | October 10, 2010 9:57 AM

As someone who has worked in financial services, I have seen a range of consumer situations from strategic defaults (people who can pay but lose value and don't) to consumers who were duped. It's hard to create one policy that will blanket all situations and be fair. I concede that HARP isn't working, in no small part due to the lax participation on the part of the banks (losing paperwork, untrained customer service reps, and a general unwillingness to truly participate; it kind of reminds me of when you force a teenager to clean out the garage and they intentionally do a half *ss job).

That said, I thought that there was a theory under that law that essentially says that a person cannot sue to receive a benefit of a fraud. So even if the bank at best lost paperwork, or at worst committed a fraud, how can a consumer benefit and receive a free home?

Lastly, I'll add that when you buy a house, the seller walks away with a check for the full sale price, and you make a promise to pay the bank back in increments in exchange. So no matter how much you complain about the bank (or how much the value has decreased), you enjoyed the benefits of living there, and you let someone walk away with the full price you agreed to. I have a problem with the bank not managing accounts responsibly and not acting in accordance with their contract and HAMP rules. I have just as big of a problem with consumers who have acted irresponsibly and complain when they fundamentally did not live up to their part of the bargain. And as a homeowner (who breaks her neck to pay) and a taxpayer, I am uncomfortable with the idea that my neighbor gets to stay and not pay (please note that the credit impact is being minimized, and that defaulters will be able to buy again post haste).

I'll quickly add that we need to stop the vitriol on either sides of the debate and be more gracious and respectful in our opinions. Every situation is nuanced and different.

Posted by: blackandgreen | October 10, 2010 11:27 AM

Proud of you US People
So far on poll..
60% of you have figured out that the banks are acting more like an organized crime syndicate than legal, regulated financial institutions.

Posted by: Elisa2 | October 10, 2010 12:46 PM

WOW! Let us continue to reward indiscipline; irresponsibility; living above our means; and BLAMING BUSH!

Just watch how quickly major enterprises leave our shores!

Take a look at who is pulling the rest of the world's recovery back (according to the IMF), and then ask yourself, "WHO'S ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE FAILING?"

Posted by: wheeljc | October 10, 2010 2:10 PM

There are some very good questions here in the comments and statements here about today’s article from the Washington Post regarding the foreclosure situation.

However we seem to see a superfluous redundancy of Americans that apparently have never lived through a foreclosure, no less how many here could truthfully answer that they designed, helped to build and install all of their homes landscaping, maintained all this for 20 years in their home, to have the banks take it away and wrongfully evict them? Why do we constantly see comments like, “You didn’t pay the bank, so what do you want? A free place to live? Get a job! Get with the game and play cheat your life like the rest of us liars.

These people have no idea of the huge illegal process that has repeated over and over by these criminal banks. Do you think a banker is anyone special? Think about it. They are usually no different than a street drug dealer. They are in business to sell inflated money to you. It is saintly and harmlessly called a “loan process.” Isn’t that sweet? Many bankers are no more than artless slobs. How would you like to go to your grave stone and read- “He was a good guy, He made allot of money off of others ignorance to buy his money from his bank by lying to his customers about the fine print.” Think of Potter, the fat cat CEO of the town in the Frank Capra movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Remember the scene where the actor played by James Stewart stands up to him? Can you imagine the bailout process being portrayed in that film? Not on your life! That would have ruined the American Story of it all. The fat cat CEO Banker, Potter in the end would be seen pushing the public, the hero played by Stewart and his fairy godfather Walter Brennan over the bridge while he held onto his trillion dollar bailout from the devil- The US Government!

The needless stories of “under water” or those who over-extended themselves in buying a second and unneeded vacation home need not respond here to this article. We are not interested in hearing from people who have hundreds of thousands $$$ of play money who have never built and maintained their own homes.

I would like to know where we can get the answers about the banks wrongfully taking our homes away. When will they give our home back or compensate us properly instead of their attorneys just throwing some needless few tens of thousands of dollars at us to pacify the former homeowner who is now homeless?

When will justice be served without all the media rhetoric? Remember the original line in the Constitution by our founding fathers before they changes the wording?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property.”

Mark Seibold, Forced into Retired IT Tech, Artist-Astronomy Educator, Portland Oregon

Posted by: markscosmiclight | October 13, 2010 7:06 PM

It's time to end our almost complete denial regarding housing. What's being stated today isn't factual, just as the information contained in mortgages. The true cause of this crisis is misstated, our too few responses have beem ineffective and misguided, and we're complete fools for not attempting to connect the dots between our millions of foreclosed families and our millions of unsold homes.
The use of housing expansion to grow our economy was a brilliant idea that hasn't lost any of it's brilliance, but it's apparent that we've lost ours. If at first you don't succeed, you flat out quit?

Posted by: reenie10 | October 14, 2010 11:38 AM

When they hire non-qualified people to sign thousands of foreclosure papers - then it must be stopped. I know there are people who should be foreclosed on, but someone qualified must take the responsibility of saying this is a genuine case for foreclosure.

Posted by: jaclk | October 16, 2010 10:50 AM

They could avoid robo-signers if they just use some of their recently high hire qualified people to actually manage the foreclosure process. If someone really didn't live up to their mortgage contract, then the bank should hire the resources to foreclose legally. But no way should all foreclosures be halted.

Posted by: JMIrvine | October 16, 2010 10:54 AM

I did a refi at a high rate in 2006 to do some home improvements. The thinking was that as soon as the improvements were done the new value would take the loan below the 80% LTV. That part of it worked but each time I tried to get another refi at a lower rate I was given one excuse after the other. I continued to pay the outrageously high payment until I lost my job last year. Had the mortgage companies given me the new loan as promised, I would have been able to save for a rainy day.

As it turns out, I could not save for that rainy day. So now both of us are getting wet.

I don't think I'm the exception. The banks have victimized a lot of other people. As far as I'm concerned their heads should roll off the guillotine platform.

Posted by: msmart2u | October 16, 2010 2:25 PM

The Washington Post is clueless! This is not a "paperwork problem." The banks and mortgage companies were engaged in FRAUD!! They don't even hold the notes on the homes they are trying to foreclose on. Why? They destroyed all the original documentation because it would show they knew they buyer would never be able to pay. They collected their fees and the taxpayer cleans up the mess.

But no one in Washington - or at this paper - wants to investigate or reveal the TRUTH! So they just keep spinning it as a "paperwork problem" (yeah, somebody forgot to cross a t).

Posted by: cselby1 | October 27, 2010 10:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company