Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To...
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages.
Recommended For You
Comments (13)
Have a tip? Submit confidentially to our News team. Found a factual error? Report here.
N
Neil459
11 Jul. 2009
And if your going to blame any President then it HAS to be Bill Clinton as this happened on his watch and the Republicans did not have enough votes alone to override the veto.So the laws did exists until a Democrat President allowed them to be repealed.
N
Neil459
11 Jul. 2009
Actually no it was not Bush, what part of the fact that the President does not pass legislation don't you get.With that said it was in fact Congress that repealed the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 in a vote under President - Bill Clinton that included:Senate
Republicans 52 Yes, 1 No
Democrats 38 Yes , 7 No
(66 required to override Presidential Veto)House
Republicans 207 Yes, 5 No, 10 not voting.
Democrats 155, Yes 51 No, 5 not voting.
(288 required to override Presidential Veto)So the truth is that it was not Bush and it was not Republicans, but was the result of politicians on both sides doing a crap job for America.You ideologues should look at the facts before posting.On Jul 11 02:50 PM Niner wrote:
> Thanks to George "business can regulate themselves" Bush............
Republicans 52 Yes, 1 No
Democrats 38 Yes , 7 No
(66 required to override Presidential Veto)House
Republicans 207 Yes, 5 No, 10 not voting.
Democrats 155, Yes 51 No, 5 not voting.
(288 required to override Presidential Veto)So the truth is that it was not Bush and it was not Republicans, but was the result of politicians on both sides doing a crap job for America.You ideologues should look at the facts before posting.On Jul 11 02:50 PM Niner wrote:
> Thanks to George "business can regulate themselves" Bush............
N
Niner
11 Jul. 2009
Thanks to George "business can regulate themselves" Bush............On Jul 11 02:06 PM Neil459 wrote:> Do a little research, the laws already existed or there were laws
> that could have been used to curtail this. But guess what, if the
> government admits that laws existed then everyone would know the
> dirty secret that the government did not enforce the laws and therefore
> could have prevented this whole crises either through enforcement
> or policy choices.
>
> The same people in government are now telling you the only solution
> is more of the same, more government, more laws. That did not work
> last time so why do you believe it will work now. Some would say
> that is the definition of insanity.
>
> On Jul 11 01:46 PM D_Virginia wrote:
> that could have been used to curtail this. But guess what, if the
> government admits that laws existed then everyone would know the
> dirty secret that the government did not enforce the laws and therefore
> could have prevented this whole crises either through enforcement
> or policy choices.
>
> The same people in government are now telling you the only solution
> is more of the same, more government, more laws. That did not work
> last time so why do you believe it will work now. Some would say
> that is the definition of insanity.
>
> On Jul 11 01:46 PM D_Virginia wrote:
N
Neil459
11 Jul. 2009
If a bank or mortgage lender committed a crime then prosecute them. But this is no different than running into stranger on the street and letting them talk you out of your life's savings. If you are dumb enough to do it then you are dumb enough to suffer the consequences.It does not make any difference that everyone else was doing it.If you want to go one step back in the cause and effect logic, its the teachers in our schools that fail to teach any economics and risk analysis, but instead insist on political dogma and self esteem.On Jul 11 02:02 PM D_Virginia wrote:
> On Jul 11 01:36 PM Poor Texan wrote:
> everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim
> of a crime.
A bit exaggerated, but not horribly off base. The crime was mostly one of negligence, but at its heart it's scarcely different from any other financial fraud.
> On Jul 11 01:36 PM Poor Texan wrote:
> everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim
> of a crime.
A bit exaggerated, but not horribly off base. The crime was mostly one of negligence, but at its heart it's scarcely different from any other financial fraud.
N
Neil459
11 Jul. 2009
Do a little research, the laws already existed or there were laws that could have been used to curtail this. But guess what, if the government admits that laws existed then everyone would know the dirty secret that the government did not enforce the laws and therefore could have prevented this whole crises either through enforcement or policy choices.The same people in government are now telling you the only solution is more of the same, more government, more laws. That did not work last time so why do you believe it will work now. Some would say that is the definition of insanity.On Jul 11 01:46 PM D_Virginia wrote:
> My old history teacher always said, "They never make a law until
> somebody screws up."
> My old history teacher always said, "They never make a law until
> somebody screws up."
D_Virginia
11 Jul. 2009
On Jul 11 01:36 PM Poor Texan wrote:
> Rather than just modify certain mortgages, why not modify all.This has been proposed by a handful of rational-thinking pundits, and it's actually not that bad of an idea -- and mathematically it's MUCH less expensive for the taxpayer than bailing out all the leverage products the banks and insurers have screwed around with.> everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim
> of a crime. A bit exaggerated, but not horribly off base. The crime was mostly one of negligence, but at its heart it's scarcely different from any other financial fraud.
> Rather than just modify certain mortgages, why not modify all.This has been proposed by a handful of rational-thinking pundits, and it's actually not that bad of an idea -- and mathematically it's MUCH less expensive for the taxpayer than bailing out all the leverage products the banks and insurers have screwed around with.> everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim
> of a crime. A bit exaggerated, but not horribly off base. The crime was mostly one of negligence, but at its heart it's scarcely different from any other financial fraud.
N
Neil459
11 Jul. 2009
If the mortgage holders want to modify their own mortgages then fine. If may be or even probably is in their self interest to do so. If not its the buyer that took on the risk and was responsible for the commitment they made. Its NOT the government role to step in and change contracts. In fact the government had the opportunity to pass laws and otherwise regulate it over them past years and even decades. Now the government wants you to believe that they HAVE to step in fix it when THE Government is the reason the problem exists.I personally do not believe in letting the thief that broke into my house fix the damage and install the security system. It makes no sense.The government is the bad guy here. There will always be crooks and others that want to take advantage. But its the government that is the watchdog and controller. The government had rules that were not enforced, had legislation that they would not pass to curtail this, and had criminals they would not prosecute. The government made poor economic policy at the Fed. On and on and on. You want to do the right thing then hold the government accountable, not make them above the law and have the ability to break or modify any contract.On Jul 11 12:59 PM Archman Investor wrote:
> Mortgages are being modified because there are no choices left.
The
> financial instruments associated with the mortgages are levered up
> 100 to 1 and the country cant afford to let things collapse.
> I am not saying i agree with the modifications, but since everyone
> let it get to far, we now have to decide do we let it all fail or
> not?
>
> compdivplan.com
> Mortgages are being modified because there are no choices left.
The
> financial instruments associated with the mortgages are levered up
> 100 to 1 and the country cant afford to let things collapse.
> I am not saying i agree with the modifications, but since everyone
> let it get to far, we now have to decide do we let it all fail or
> not?
>
> compdivplan.com
D_Virginia
11 Jul. 2009
My old history teacher always said, "They never make a law until somebody screws up."Guess what, someone screwed up. Big. Really big.So, before too long you can bet there will be some new laws.But what happens immediately after the screw-up is a kind of nebulous period where we still don't have the laws that we wish we'd had all along, but something must be done to keep things from getting worse.Before there were anti-trust laws, the government leaned on monopolies.Before there were malpractice laws, the government leaned on doctors and lawyers.Now, before there are "don't be a destructive evil bank/broker/rater" laws, the government must lean on banks/brokers/raters to keep things from getting worse.On Jul 11 01:34 PM Neil459 wrote:> I am sorry, but it does. Its the one thing that separates us from Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and all the other countries where powerful politician's can just do what they want. In this instance you think it makes sense and it may. However, once crossed the abuses will be far larger than any benefit now.
Poor Texan
11 Jul. 2009
Rather than just modify certain mortgages, why not modify all. Reset all mortgages to a 30 year 2% rate and if a person has paid off their mortgage give them a gift of 25% of the value of their home. This seems fair since everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim of a crime. Or at least that's what D_Virginia thinks.
N
Neil459
11 Jul. 2009
On Jul 11 10:17 AM D_Virginia wrote:
> Please try to think, at least some of the time. The letter of the
> law doesn't always actually do anything useful.I am sorry, but it does. Its the one thing that separates us from Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and all the other countries where powerful politician's can just do what they want. In this instance you think it makes sense and it may. However, once crossed the abuses will be far larger than any benefit now.
> Please try to think, at least some of the time. The letter of the
> law doesn't always actually do anything useful.I am sorry, but it does. Its the one thing that separates us from Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and all the other countries where powerful politician's can just do what they want. In this instance you think it makes sense and it may. However, once crossed the abuses will be far larger than any benefit now.
A
Archman Investor
11 Jul. 2009
Mortgages are being modified because there are no choices left.
The financial instruments associated with the mortgages are levered up 100 to 1 and the country cant afford to let things collapse.
I am not saying i agree with the modifications, but since everyone let it get to far, we now have to decide do we let it all fail or not?compdivplan.com
The financial instruments associated with the mortgages are levered up 100 to 1 and the country cant afford to let things collapse.
I am not saying i agree with the modifications, but since everyone let it get to far, we now have to decide do we let it all fail or not?compdivplan.com
D_Virginia
11 Jul. 2009
Why do ignorant people support the collapse of the economy? The collapse of the economy is one major reason why we are about to be just another two-bit tin-horn third world country.Do the math kids, something needs to be done. Most of the defaulters aren't in a position to do anything, so unfortunately it false to the other side of the equation.Please try to think, at least some of the time. The letter of the law doesn't always actually do anything useful.
N
Neil459
11 Jul. 2009
Mortgage servicers have contracts, they should not be pressured or forced to change them to make the government happy. If the government wants different terms then let the government buy out the mortgage.Why do ignorant people support this erosion in the rule of law? Rule of law is one major reason why we are not just another two-bit tin-horn third world country.I guess people would just prefer to have lawlessness.