McCain Names Names

I was watching CNN last night and some radio guy said that there was 5 million foreclosures from illegal aliens. How does an illegal alien even get a home loan?

In a nutshell, lenders would give loans to just about anything that breathed, in fact, according to federal guidelines that were imposed on Lending instituions, they were directed to accept welfare and unemployment checks as income for loan qualifications and a LACK of credit or POOR credit was not to be used as criteria to turn down an applicant. So, lenders would bundle all these loans ( pretty much knowing they would default) and sell them off to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac who were, what?.....a Government backed or packed ( as in Herb Moses Fannie Maes former president with Barney Franks) mortgage holders who all along said they were Garuuuuunteed by the Fed., well they weren't but they are now.
Well now we have the mess that WE all have to pay for. This is the product of Socialised Banking, and some in Congress, re: alot who want to be re-elected, are wanting these scofflaws to be bailed out and supported by US, even more, some are saying they want to continue the same practices because Diversified housing is such a good thing. People like you and me who work hard and pay our bills and mortgages are getting screwed.

I remember when applying for a mortgage was like living through the Spanish Inquisition, many a night wondering if we would get accepted, the same went when buying a new car, not as intense but still a sense of wondering if you were going to get denied or a higher interest rate.

Sorry, it was a bigger NUTSHELL than I thought.

How a Young Chicago Litigator (OBAMA) Helped Create the Subprime Housing Crisis.

Read the facts for yourselves:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194379.php

And no, you probably won't hear much about this in the mainstream media.

Redlining and bad loans are not the same much as they would have belive. Banks can make a good loan in a bad neighborhood but they were choosing to not make _any_ loans in certain neighborhoods, period.

No one mentions the financial incentives they had to make loans "at any risk"? Not much different than your average pump-n-dump boiler room stock scam. The people who knew they couldn't afford these mortgages are just as guilty as the lenders that made them. "Bad loans" encompasses any loan that went bad - I haven't seen a statistic of how many went bad due to people loosing jobs, etc vs those who couldn't afford them from the start. How many are from r/e speculators that hoped to make a quick buck?

There are a lot of people who could have paid the mortgage for 30 years but due to external circumstances went into default.

The difference between the banks and people is that people who default loose everything but the banks get bailed out.

Weclome to Corporate welfare.

As an insurance agent I get the call when a policyholder has defaulted on their loan and the house is now frozen up or been vandalized. In Maine I have not had a lot of the variable/interest only type loans default except for the folks who were turning properties (my brother for one). I stopped doing interest only mortgages three or four years ago and would only do them under certain conditions. I turned away probably 50 loans in the past few years becuase I wouldn't agree to write that type of mortgage. I have had many more properties under forclosure due to job loss than other reasons, but that is not scientific becuase probably 90% of my insured homes are for occupancy vs. investments. So far only one mortgage I wrote has defaulted, and that was for a loss of job.

On Redlining. Insurance as an inudstry was nailed for this 15 years ago becuase we wouldn't insure certain areas of Houston for example, regardless of a person's loss experience. Once we got fined millions of dollars, we changed our ways. It was actually pretty sad to see. At the time I was working for the company in Houston and it was pretty much blatant descrimination and no one even tried to hide this fact.

Kootch, as far as redlining goes. Does that apply to at risk properties like shoreline ones? Just curious, I mean why should one be forced to underwrite someone they pretty much know is going to get wiped out in the not to distant future from a hurricane. Kinda like..... say, unemployed crackheads and welfare moms with 5 kids from 5 different fathers buying McMansions with a ARM for 500K or more, is there really a difference? I don't get why we get shouldered with the losses because of someone elses stupidity and why the government says we must.

I'm guessing you know the difference bewteen the shoreline homes, which are more and more difficult to insure, even in Maine, vs. economic & demographic exclusions, which is the commonly accepted definition of redlining. We are able to rate an area of particularly high risk, such as the fifth ward in Houston or ninth ward in N.O. because there is a statistical probababilty of loss that can be determined, so we can rate appropriately. Race and economic conditions can not be used as a rating factor. Example, a renters policy in the fifth ward may have a 250% rating vs. one elsewhere in a city based on loss ratios alone.