Welcome to PatsFans.com

"Forgivable" $50,000 no interest loans: Feds offer mortgage help to unemployed

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Jul 7, 2011.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +409 / 5 / -2

    I hope I'm understanding this wrong.



    Feds offer mortgage help to unemployed

    By Beth Potter

    July 7, 2011 --

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - Unemployed homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages can get help from new government programs.

    In the first program, unemployed homeowners can get an up to nine-month reprieve on their homes potentially being foreclosed. Mortgage lenders will extend the "forbearance period" to 12 months for unemployed homeowners with FHA loans, under the new Federal Housing Administration rules.

    "Forbearance" is the delay period before foreclosure proceedings start on a house. The current forbearance period is four months for FHA loans.

    ------------------------


    In the Emergency Homeowner Loan Program, homeowners can receive interest-free, forgivable loans, which pay a portion of their monthly mortgages for up to two years, or up to $50,000. The program is expected to help as many as 30,000 distressed borrowers across the country, with an average loan amount of about $35,000.


    Feds help unemployed on mortgages | Boulder County Business Report
  2. tehmackdaddy

    tehmackdaddy Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The Feds are also pushing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers. Apparently our government has already forgotten the major driver of the 2008 bubble burst that sent us into the Great Recession.

    Idiots.
  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    Hey RW...30,000 loans of $50,000 is only $1.5 BILLION!

    You and I can afford to give some poor slob $50K to "help him along" during these difficult times, can't we?:rolleyes:

    Honestly, phuk the "forgivable" part! Are they kidding about that? Who the hell would just "LOAN" somone $50k of other people's money and then tell them,

    "You don't have to pay it back...don't worry about it!"?

    Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands have lost their homes and have to stand and watch 30,000 people get free money from other Americans without their consent.

    Even Jack Bauer, Mrs & Mr PFiVA, Darryl and Titus would agree this program smells rotten.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  4. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    Really? You got any links about that? That just makes no sense at all. Even the common Jane & Joe don't want banks to lend to anyone unqualified any more.

    I'd love to read more about this if you got the links.
  5. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,825
    Likes Received:
    78
    Ratings:
    +141 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    I think the program pays up to $50k and the money only pays a portion of each payment, it doesn't make payments for them.
  6. tehmackdaddy

    tehmackdaddy Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    A Renewed Crackdown on Redlining - BusinessWeek
  7. Charlotte Pats Fan

    Charlotte Pats Fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,629
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +81 / 1 / -3

    No Jersey Selected

    Google this, FHA the new Subprime and this, FHA Loan Requirements and this FHA Loan Defaults
  8. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Well, they wouldn't want other people that are unqualified to get unforgivable loans; I"m sure they would be fine with getting the money themselves.

    Never underestimate the entitlement of the general public PR!
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,327
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +392 / 6 / -9

    Yeah I'm hoping you're understanding it wrong too...

    It would be interesting to know the details. This website decided to prominently display the modifier "fogivable," then you decided to bold it and make it a couple sizes bigger.

    The question is what's involved in the "forgiveness" part. Is there a mechanism whereby the feds arrange to forgive the loan under certain circumstances, but you have to prove a bunch of stuff, and "forgiveness" is only even conceivable in say 10 cases a year?

    In other words, is it "possible that the loans are forgiven," or is that a primary feature of the loans - i.e., you just don't feel like paying anymore, and you can walk away?

    I doubt that. Do you need to prove insolvency to walk away from the loan?

    Well, that's at least a little more honest than "strategic default." At least you're not stiffing the rest of us by choice for your own gain.

    Demanding proof of insolvency would be the same standard we demand for Corporations to say "wahhhhh I can no longer afford the pension promises I exchanged for people's labor," dump the pensions on the feds in bankruptcy, and start over.

    Now, would I support forgiveness upon proof of insolvency? I can see how it's a prop to an otherwise battered industry, but I just can't go with "pay people's mortgages, permanently, based on them being unemployed," with no further difficulty in getting the loan forgiveness.

    I suppose since these programs affect a total of only 35,000 homeowners, this is already an almost certain to be insolvent pool. But I'd say there's got to be more, before the loan can be forgiven.

    Only bad answers here, frankly. Foul the incentive to pay your debt, or exaccerbate the housing crisis and allow the creation of another new wave in the poor and homeless?

    Giving away whole homes in some cases, or a big chunk of a whole home, strikes me as something you shouldn't be able to do, in a vacuum.

    Would love to see the black and white of the requirements for loan forgiveness. If the only prerequisite is participation in the program in the first place, yeah, I have to say "blech."

    PFnV
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    How would you justify helping 30,000 people and letting thousands of others lose their homes to forclosure.

    I truly hope this is not a "minority" program! I just don't see the logic in helping "a select few", do you? Does anyone deserve to lose their home more than anyone else?
  11. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    Banks not doing business in minority areas is just pragmatic. After all, if 97% of the people in a given area don't qualify for a mortgage, why operate a branch in that area if the area down the road has 50% that will qualify?

    We can't and should not expect banks to be nice to "certain poor people", can we? Just treat them all as customers is all we can ask. If you can't give a loan to caucasian family because they don't qualify, then you must apply the same standards to all races...what the hell is wrong with that?
  12. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,327
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 9 / -26

    Equal opportunity for some.. nice idea.

    Of course you assume that all poor people will not qualify, god forbid those poor peoples get the opportunity to own a house, aka the american dream.
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    No, you're wrong Darryl

    YOU'RE WRONG....AGAIN!!

    As long as the same standards are used for all people, then it's truly the American Dream.

    Equal opportunity means equal standards....does it not?

    But if a bank doesn't put a branch in a poor white area or a poor african-american area, it's the same exact thing. It's just business.

    You don't put a Saks 5th Ave in a poor area either....oh, that's right....you won't find too many national chains in the middle of a poverty-stricken area either. And that's not a "bad thing" just for your information.

    Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +409 / 5 / -2

    Bingo. Equal doesn't mean that everyone gets "one". It simply means that everyone should get the same "equal" opportunity to get "one".
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    But I have money that says ol Darryl won't respond again because he made his blanket statement....even though it was wrong.

    I think the reality is that Darryl really thinks minorities should have different standards...but I don't think he has the Kahuna's to admit it to us.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>