Ed Show: 'America's Mayor' Calls for Moratorium on Home Foreclosures

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 01:12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c6oOa1Xd8   Posted on YouTube: November 14, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 15, 2009 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1913

 
MSNBC The Ed Show w/ ED SCHULTZ - 12 November 2009:

VIRG BERNERO, MAYOR, LANSING, MICHIGAN: "These mortgage companies, these mortgage folks got away with murder and a lot of these companies got bailed out. And they're still screwing the homeowners. So we need a moratorium. There's no question about it. ... we need a two-year moratorium, at least, on foreclosures. I would say, Ed, you know, homes under $200,000. Let's have a moratorium. Let's sort this out. Let's give some people some breathing space in this tough economy. Lord knows, you gave the breathing space to Wall Street."

[huntbir4]

1. As long as the homeowners pay interest during the moratorium

OK with a moratorium, but the homeowners need to pay interest on the mortage at the contract default rate, since they are in default.

[Catshrink]

2. Do you have any idea what portion of a monthly

mortgage payment is interest? Your *brilliant* idea is worthless to most people having trouble paying their mortgages.

Might as well order a pizza.

[huntbir4]

3. So you want the mortgage company to eat the cost of not receiving interest.

What do you think that will do to the next guy wanting a mortgage? There isn't any free lunch. If you stick it to the mortgage holders by not letting them at least get interest, the cost of new loans for people will just go up and up.

Do the interest calculation yourself. $200,000 mortage at 6% is $1,000 per month. Not much more than rent and they get to stay in their home. Maybe we should do what they did decades ago; families moved in with each other and supported each other through these times.

[Catshrink]

4. Your idea is not useful

and won't solve anything so if that's your solution, scrap the damn plan. The taxpayers are eating the cost of those million dollar bonuses for the bankers. On this board we believe in helping people, not propping up banks and "the haves" at the expense of those in crisis. You know, all that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless stuff that the GOP finds frivolous while they're so busy persecuting people who don't look like them.

[huntbir4]

7. How is costing every homeowner that MAKES his mortgage payment helping others?

So you tell me people here want to help others. So how does raising the cost of everyone that is making their mortgage payment helping others? How is raising the cost of a mortgage for a new couple just out to buy their first home helping others?

[Catshrink]

10. How does paying a Wall Street a $5million bonus helping people?

Especially when it is the result of predatory lending. Get your priorities straight.

Your first point was oh, the poor bankers. I don't feel sorry for the bankers. That didn't go anywhere so now you're going with raising the cost for other buyers. It doesn't fly.

It's clear you're against helping people in need. Fine. Kick 'em out of their houses and let them live on the street. That's what Jesus would do, right?

[huntbir4]

12. Predatory lending? Excuse me; banks were forced to make subprime loans.!

You want to rehash how so many people WITHOUT JOBS got homes?

I don't think you want to go there because guys like Chris Dodd & Barney Frank are at the top of the blame list.

[Hissyspit]

13. That's right-wing bullshit.

[orbitalman]

26. That's RIGHT...

Anyone with any sense of actual logic can see this is truly BuLlShIt.

[StreetKnowledge]

15. OK, so change the laws so that it doesn't happen again.

But that does NOT absolve the lenders. Banks got more money than the GDP of many first world countries, and they still turned around and threw hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes. I agree with Ving. Just because the mistakes were made then doesn't mean you have to continue allowing banks to make people homeless when they get gigantic bailouts at their expense.

I have another idea on that front - a mortgage bailout bill. This one pays NOTHING to banks, but instead buys the defaulted mortgages, and then people pay their mortgages back, just the principal. A $150,000 mortgage for 25 years pays $6000 a year, $500 a month. For somebody borrowing $150,000, I doubt that person cannot afford $500 a month. With that in mind, if somebody is laid off legitimiately, they are not required to keep paying until they have a job. We've given the fat cats way too much to keep giving to them. Enough is enough.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

17. I thought this should be the approach from the beginning

As a taxpayer, I would much prefer there was some specific and tangible benefit to taxpayers like people staying in their homes. As the plan was implemented we got nothing to show for the money spent. Just some speculative bs that everything would have been worse. I could possibly even advocate that some credit card debt be "paid off". If we are spending trillions why not get relief to the most people rather than continued sending it into a black hole. Who the hell knows where the $ is?

Just to qualify my statement. I am completely debt free excepting a modest mortgage payment. I would not begrudge others who may have been less responsible -or less lucky - than me getting some sort of assistance in this regard. Some of my friends hate the idea but I see my peace of mind and a good night's sleep as my reward.

[axollot]

20. That's RW talk radio rubbish. Do your homework then

come back to play. TILT!

[dotymed]

25. What about the people who

have already been evicted? What about those people who have
ran out of unemployment long ago? Come to find out, too late
now, that the mortgage company didn't even have the deeds to
those homes. What about those people? What about the 45
million people who still don't have insurance and, IF this
"for profit insurance scam" is passed, will still
have to wait 4 years to get minimal coverage? I know someone
who has heart failure, a destroyed rotator cuff and teeth
falling out (not from drug usage). He moved into his mothers
house after his last heart attack, because he couldn't work.
The hospital had already forced his mom to agree to pay for
his hospital charges or they would not help him. He died,3
times before they placed a stent.He gets some medicine through
his county clinic, but only the meds for his heart. No pain
meds for his arm (which they said "yea, you need
surgery"), no sleep meds even though his cardiologist
prescribed them. Nothing for his anxiety, the county Dr.
laughed at him.
That guy is my brother.I too have heart failure and 5 heart
stents. A lot of my heart is scar tissue with 100%
blockages.Even though we were both carpenters, I am still in
the Union. After 3 disabled years, I still get my health
insurance and all of the meds my brother needs, for a small
co-pay. I finally get a disability hearing on thanksgiving
eve. I am so afraid they will turn me down, even though my
cardiologist practices at one of the best cardiac centers in
the country. He has written that I am 100% permanently unable
to work. I have heart failure and sleep more than I am awake.
He said that the next phase is a death bed. But the SS has
their own Dr.'s. They barely speak english and they have
"examined me" maybe 5 mins each time. They
say," I can't be a carpenter but I can still work
somewhere." I would rather die than end up with
absolutely no dignity. I have 2 pensions(besides SS) if I am
certified by our govt. as totally disabled. 3 years ago, my
dr. said I would live about 5 years. I am only 48 but
inoperable because of my arteries and my advanced health
problems. Maybe next month, I'll have to move in with my 74
year old mother too. She has heart failure too. I have worked
legally since I was 12 years old. What happens to us?

[laughingliberal]

5. Seems to me there was a free lunch...

for the mortgage companies who had something of a hand in the meltdown of our economy. Remind me how much money we gave them that and tell me how they have used it to benefit anyone other than themselves in, exactly, what way?

[prairierose]

8. If there is no free lunch, then why ...

were so many predatory lenders allowed to operate with impunity for so long? And why were so many banksters and wall street gamblers made whole while the taxpayers got nothing but the bill?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catshrink]

11. Ha!

Didn't take long, did it? +1 prairierose!

[prairierose]

14. it's amazing isn't it, Catshrink....

:hi:

[Sanity Claws]

18. The mortgage companies don't even hold the mortgage anymore

They were rolled up, remember, and sold. The foreclosing entity can't even produce the note very often

As for mortgage companies going out of business, GOOD. They preyed on people.

[jotsy]

22. Why accept the terms of a corrupt process?

Paying three to five times what a house actually cost is what is ridiculous. The framing of your position is from a perspective I find curiously favorable to the rip off that's being run here.

[truedelphi]

27. It seems that you are totally unaware that what we used to do was this

We forbade FORECLSOURES OUTRIGHT.

That is right. During the Last Great Depressin, 34 states banned foreclosures out right. 34 states.

Malcolm Gladwell, author of the book, "Blink," just had a story or article about the million dollar guy in Reno. This is a single homeless man who while being out in the street for twelve months, racked up one million dollars of social services. Came about in the form of in police time and court paper work, ER visits, social worker time, homeless shelter costs etc.

Who do you think pays for that? When they start closing your kids' schools in order to support this type of social service, you might start to change your mind.

[axollot]

19. +1

[notadmblnd]

6. please Virg, run for Governor of Michigan

[droidamus2]

16. Good idea

It amazes me the number of people that think everybody that is having problems with their mortgage started out getting in over their head or are shirkers that just don't want to pay what they owe. First, peoples situations change i.e. the economy tanks and people lose their jobs, people have medical problems that effect their ability to earn and many other possibilities that all effect the ability to pay a mortgage that when it was originally taken out was well within their means. Second, don't ignore the fact that many of these people have already paid a substantial amount into these homes when the bank forecloses. Let's say they bought a $200000 home and have now paid the principal down to $80000 but do to circumstances they are having a hard time paying their mortgage. They have a 60% equity but lets say they are unemployed so getting an equity loan would be difficult if not impossible. I don't have the tables in front of me but I would guess with interest they have probably paid close to the original buying cost of the home already. Yet people say 'oh well you took the risk in buying a home an lost. have fun in the streets'. Sure those that lose their jobs can find new jobs, hopefully paying close to what they made before, but that can take time especially in this economy. The Mayor isn't saying forgive the loans he is just saying lets stop kicking people out of their homes for a couple of years and see if they can get back on their feet and start paying down their loans again. In the end the banks don't get stuck with a bunch of real estate that's value has gone down and people get to stay in their homes. Yes, it is unfortunate that this may effect new home buyers but everybody with mortgage problems was a new home buyer at some point and look what it got them. In hard economic times it should be harder to get a mortgage that's just the way it works.

[greiner3]

21. Shouldn't allow sex on the air without at least advance notice!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

23. How does it benefit the economy

(not to mention individuals) to kick families out of their homes? Particularly if the financial turbulence was brought on by a job loss? We do need a moratorium on evictions, but I'd take it one step farther and make it retroactive.

[edc]

24. Somehow the idea

of people living on the streets in front of vacant homes they once owned that are slowly falling apart because they aren't making mortgage payments and the banks can't sell them is economically and socially retarded.