Video: Bail me out, Obama!
posted at 1:50 pm on February 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Michelle has a clip from CNN that demonstrates the silliness of the mortgage-bailout efforts of the Obama administration. Minta Garcia and her family bought an $800,000 home that they could not afford, using speculative lending as a lever. The value of the house has dropped to $675,000, and now Garcia faces foreclosure. However, the coverage omits a critical piece of the puzzle:
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): School bus driver and mother of two, Minta Garcia got the letter every homeowner dreads, your mortgage is in jeopardy of going into foreclosure.
MINTA GARCIA, DISTRESSED HOMEOWNER: We’re going to be losing the house. We’re going to lose everything.
ACOSTA (on camera): You think you’re going to lose everything?
GARCIA: Yes.
ACOSTA (voice-over): Her message to the president…
GARCIA: Stop with the foreclosure.
ACOSTA (on camera): Stop the foreclosures?
GARCIA: Yes. Right now, because if people are losing houses, losing jobs, what are we going to do? …
ACOSTA: Like countless other Americans, Garcia admits she and her husband bought more house than they could afford, but she says the lender made the purchase all too easy. Now her mortgage is worth more than her house.
(on camera): How much was the house when you bought it?
GARCIA: Eight hundred.
ACOSTA: Eight hundred thousand dollars?. And how much is the house worth?
GARCIA: Right now, it’s like $675,000 on the market.
I guess the first question I’d ask is what made a bus driver believe she could afford an $800,000 house. Unless she makes six figures and had a hell of a down payment, the figures themselves seem so far out of whack that one has to wonder how it occurred at all. The lenders certainly deserve blame here, too, but no one forced Minta Garcia into that house and that mortgage.
What has happened in too many cases is that homeowners took a speculative risk on their house, either buying a home they couldn’t afford or emptying the equity in their existing home in anticipation of above-inflation value growth. Once the market reinflated the equity, the owners could refinance with better terms on a fixed-rate mortgage and have a payment they could (barely) afford. Unfortunately, this Ponzi scheme imploded when housing at first failed to increase in value and then began to drop.
In other words, the homeowners took a risk based on market appreciation. Those who completed their refinancing before 2007 managed to avoid losses. Others took a risk and lost out. Let’s remember that Garcia’s home value only matters if she tries to sell the property. Lenders do not foreclose just because the valuation drops; they foreclose when borrowers can’t make the payments. Being under water on a mortgage doesn’t mean one can’t make payments as long as the owner bought a home and a mortgage he or she could afford.
Garcia didn’t do that, and now she wants taxpayers to indemnify her for taking a loss on a risk she assumed on her own. The government doesn’t exist to remove risk from speculative investments, and to the extent that they do so, they only ensure that more speculation rather than less takes place in the future.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Did anyone see the piece on Fox & Friends this morning that showed that the “nationwide” mortgage crisis is really in only five states – California, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, and Michigan? So, the costs in these states were so overinflated that there are a lot of homeowners who are under water. There are a lot of foreclosures because of exactly the type of market speculation that many have mentioned in this thread. However, the market is working; people are buying these properties for rental income, etc. If we just left it alone, the market would rebound and the 92% of us who bought responsibly wouldn’t have to bail out the other 8% of the Minta Garcias who were stupid. Sheesh!
College Prof on February 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM
catman:
I saw that interview about “homeowners’ RIGHT to stay in their home”. Infuriating.
But I was referring specifically to all the talk in the 90′s about “red lining” and other scary words implying that low income, minority, and uncreditworthy borrowers were being discriminated against. Everywhere you turned the pols and the media were whining that those people DESERVED credit. (Enter Barney Frank, et al)
I want to see those same people asked: “Do you still believe banks should be lending to low income people, less creditworthy borrowers?”. Simple question, yes or no?
jeanneb on February 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Add this up:
If Mr. Garcia has a really good income (implies some technical skill or education), why is wifey driving a school bus?
I recommend applying Occam’s Razor to the problem.
BobMbx on February 23, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Thanks. I just did it for my neighborhood. Gulp. Awful lot of “P” for preforeclosure.
rbj on February 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Lots of people work. The point is; the story is incomplete.
Everyone is screaming, “How can a bus driver afford an $800,000 home?”
There is no way in hell she got the loan based on her income alone.
reaganaut on February 23, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I hope some (other) lenders come out and told the story about how they tried to discourage the Garcias from purchasing the house. Other lenders tried to instill some realitiy into the Garcias’ speculating on housing market.
But the Garcias’ insisted on doing the foolish thing (dreaming the American Dream – not just owning a huge mansion, but make a tidy profit) and voila found the current lender to OK the loan.
Sir Napsalot on February 23, 2009 at 3:45 PM
If any downpayment at all. This new mortgage bailout is going to give people homes they’ve never owned. If you get a 100% loan (or greater) you don’t own the home, you are a renter.
peacenprosperity on February 23, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Yes there is. See a previous post of mine, and google a “no doc loan”. The banks were writing loans without even asking what the incomes were. Also known as “liar loans”.
BobMbx on February 23, 2009 at 3:45 PM
What does the present price of the of the house have to do with her mortgage payment?
Is she an iilegal?
drjohn on February 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Take-home message: Americans don’t need to get smarter about their purchases – they just need to get bailed out.
Andrew D on February 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM
I could have refinanced my home and used the proceeds to buy large amounts of real estate in order to speculate on the rising market. If I had done so in the period 1993-2007, while I was slaving away paying my mortgage off, I would be a millionaire several times over by now. Of course, if I had continued to do so from 2007-2009, I would have lost it all, and then some.
I recognized that this would be a speculative investment, so I didn’t take the risk. I just took the conservative course of paying the mortgage and living within my means. Now I am expected to spend my hard-earned money to bail out people who lost out while taking risks to get rich quick.
gridlock2 on February 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM
These people should be moved to Gitmo where they could live free.
The cultre that the Goverment school breeds.
I’ll bet they get food stamps also.
I bought a house 30 years ago 1800 SQF and I will sell it to her for 500.000.00 10% down.
Rick007 on February 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM
So? The price of her home dropped by $125K. The only people to lose money when the value of a house drops are those who sell when it is low. What about those people? Did they only buy to make a quick buck? Back to our specific case at hand: how did she think she was going to finance a $800K mortgage (or even $600K) on a bus driver’s salary? Does the report say she she is out of work? Is she collecting rent? A $600K 30 yr. mortgage at 4% will cost her $4K per month — per heating/AC, electricity, and before property taxes, etc. Can she afford that on a bus driver’s salary? What’s that you say? I’m being unfair — perhaps her husband lost his job. I think the report would have said that. Let her walk — she won’t be losing the $125K — the bank will.
The Frontiersman on February 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Mobile meth lab?
TugboatPhil on February 23, 2009 at 4:22 PM
I’m missing the part where her foreclosure is my problem.
Does she lose her job, too, if they foreclose on the house?
DarthBrooks on February 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM
That makes a lot of sense, especially adding in the “flip before the high payment kicks in” part. If that’s what they were planning on doing, then they bought into an unsustainable bubble that anyone in their right mind knew wouldn’t last. In a nutshell, they got greedy and now wants us to bail her out of her greed.
Eff her.
crazy_legs on February 23, 2009 at 4:47 PM
No one’s buying it.
No one.
CNN can plead her case all they want, but this is a bus driver and an eight-hundred thousand dollar house!
Let’em keep whining.
Typhoon on February 23, 2009 at 4:56 PM
This is what decades of entitlement programs and the nanny state lead to. Everyone believes the government will remove the risk from living and rescue those who are too stupid or greedy to survive. The liberals have been preaching since the 60′s that none of us are responsible for our own actions and everything that goes wrong in our lives is not our fault but that of the heartless capitalist system that victimizes us. Therefore, we shouldn’t be penalized. It’s a potent belief combination that is leading to national ruin.
NNtrancer on February 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM
I saw it..funny, it wasnt in the MSM. hmm
becki51758 on February 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM
This video demonstrates, clearly, why I’m so ticked off about this stimulus bill. That this stupid hag thought she could afford an $800,000 home is beyond any comprehension.
I would like to live in an $800,000 home, too, idiot but I know that I don’t have the MEANS to do that so I don’t go out looking for a mortgage. “Oh, boo hoo, I was swindled. They made it so easy for me.” USE YOUR BRAIN! I don’t CARE if the lending company made it easy for her, the responsibility ULTIMATELY lies on HER shoulders for signing the damn paperwork in the first place.
RENT, you insipid TWIT. Go to nightschool. Get a better paying job. Work yourself up the ladder. When you can afford that type of home, (which most people NEVER will be able to afford, entitlement feeling b**ch!), THEN you go ahead and purchase it.
I do not feel in the least bit sorry for her. My only hope is that the spawn she has will learn something from this…oops! That won’t happen with the ridiculous bailout. So this viscous cycle will repeat itself in the future. Oh goody.
SerenityFL on February 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Yeah, it’s like a 21-year-old college student part-time burger flipper saying, “Damn that bank, they shouldn’t have given me that credit card with the $2,000 limit that I maxed out and now I’m in default! Boo-hoo-hoo!” Of course, the bank would bear some of the blame, but the kid’s not getting any sympathy from me.
ddrintn on February 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM
It’s interesting to see what property is worth when cash buyers are the only buyers. Minta Garcia thinks her 800k home is now worth 675k? The cash bid will probably a lot less than that. As Freddy and Fannie loosened standards on borrowers, prices became unrealistic and fools were ushered in. And the system works as long as another fool is in the buyer’s waiting room with the promise of a federally guaranteed loan.
Mark30339 on February 23, 2009 at 5:47 PM
I live in Evanston now… And love Barcelona tapas. :)
Illinidiva on February 23, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Duh? Try asking an intelligent question. How can we possibly afford to protect someone who paid 5 to 8 times what she can afford? And even if we could afford it, which we clearly can’t, how is that fair to all those responsible people who live within their means? And, is the government trying to persuade everyone to be irresponsible?
Basilsbest on February 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM
It reminds me of the people who are up to their eyeballs in Credit Card debt blaming the Credit Card companies… “They made it too easy! It’s all their fault! They were holding a gun to my head to accept the credit and spend!”
Did you hear her? “They made it too easy.” TRANSLATION: ” It’s not my fault!”
CynicalOptimist on February 23, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Agreed and it’s an interesting question why her husband’s income was left out of the picture. Was it intentional on the part of CNN? I think so, as it’s an obvious question any rookie journalist would ask. No mention of him losing his job, no mention of his making less than the wife or even the same amount, as in “we are both bus drivers”.
Either the guy is a loafer, in which case they should never have bought the home, or he’s making lots more and they were looking to flip the home and make some easy money.
But it doesn’t matter. Pay or move. And if CNN thinks the Garcias’ problem is important enough to have it solved, CNN can solve it by paying their mortgage.
Dusty on February 23, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Well, you join the renting class. Look at the bright side, when the toilet or A/C is broken you just call the poor schmuck landlord.
I await that day again…..
FireBlogger on February 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM
What sort of lunkhead goes out and buys an $800,000 home while working a job that can hardly pay even for the utilities in the house like gas and electricity? And now, she is moaning and begging that B.O. should ride to her rescue?
What in the name of God has happened to the concept of Common Sense in this country? What happened to taking responsibility for your actions? Have we now sunk so low that we are expecting the Government to fill our ever need?
This Minta Garcia gal needs to have a couple of gallons of freezing cold glacier water doused on her head to wake her up to reality!
pilamaye on February 23, 2009 at 6:11 PM
This really ticks me off.
A couple of years ago, I became very ill, couldn’t work (I was a teacher with an MA) and I was going to lose my house.
So I sold it, used the small profit to bankroll my recovery and moved to my $33,000 unwinterized summer cottage.
Needless to say, it was a rough first winter. But I got by and my health problem has cleared up. I would never have dreamed of asking someone else to bail me out.
wyntre on February 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM
There is something not right with this sorry. CNN or Minta are leaving out some key points. What does her husband do? They never said.
I do not understand. she got the $800,000 mortgage and was making payments just because her house value dropped it shouldn’t make any difference unless she wanted to move.
peterargus on February 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Media is out to make two wrongs into one right – one wrong that this woman got a loan for an $800,000 home with the existing mortgage loan program (totally wrong to give someone a loan for a house they can not afford) and the stimulus package just passed which would help such individuals stay in such homes and enjoy the house free and clear on the rest of us (burning me up wrong!!)
OneConservative on February 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM
She bought an 800,000 dollar house???? That’s insane! In Canada, you couldn’t even ASK for an 800,000 dollar mortgage unless you had 200,000 to put down. Her fault, clearly, but there is something very wrong with your mortgage system if someone who makes, what, 40,000/year can qualify for a mortgage that it would take them at least 50 years to pay off.
ProfessorMiao on February 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Frak it. I’m going to quit paying my mortgage. I mean, what’s the worst that can happen? Ding my credit as they chop of 30% of what I owe and lower the interest rate? You’d be a fool not to jump at that offer. There’s nothing to be gained by not doing so. And what good is your credit rating now days anyway?
And how about instead of a tea party we all send our monthly mortgage bill to the White House? Send it along with the $13 the One is going to give back to us.
The fall has started. It’s by design and it’s going to be messy. God help us all, especially my kids and you younger ones.
Rod on February 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM
How in the Heck did she even qualify for a house that expensive.
kbass on February 23, 2009 at 6:25 PM
When hearing all of this from “adults”, I can imagine what they have taught their children. Hard to imagine that this type of thinking will change anytime soon. To people of common sense, there is no argument. The word “responsibility” says it all. As I was told by my parents when I was a young adult, “you made your bed, now lay in it”. As usual they were right and I struggled through. The only thing that will change our current problems is for all to recognize that their actions have consequences (good & bad).
hillbilly on February 23, 2009 at 6:31 PM
“I bought a car way back and it’s not worth at all what I paid for it,,, and well,,,,, the loan were way too easy. Now, I don’t know,, I struggled a little and we got behind so,, well, I can’t pay my payments no more,, I think Obama could bail us out and tell the repo man to just stay away and,, well, , and it’s just not fair cause other people got money to pay for their cars so I need Obama to give me money to pay for my car,,,,, and then,, I got a Jean’s City credit card and a Master World credit card,, ,, and ,, well, it was way too easy and I ended up buying a whole lot a jeans and I used my Master World credit card to buy cheese burgers and well, now I lost my job and the jeans,,there not even worth what I paid for them,, they don’t even fit anymore cause of all the cheeseburgers they made me buy,, and well, I need Obama get me new jeans or send me a bail out check cause,, somebody’s gotta pay for these jeans they made me buy and somebody’s gotta pay for these cheeseburgers they made me eat,,, I can’t pay for them,, somebody’s gotta pay,, I can’t!!”
JellyToast on February 23, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Is this woman an illegal alien??? Hmmm??
JellyToast on February 23, 2009 at 6:36 PM
An Amendment:
“Lenders do not foreclose just because the valuation drops; they foreclose when borrowers can’t make the payments.”
Should be:
“…they foreclose when borrowers don’t make the payments.”
This is significant because it is possible in certain circumstances to decide to stop making payments on a mortgage even though you are able to do so.
DaMav on February 23, 2009 at 6:36 PM
So let me get this straight.
Obama is going to let her keep her house, but I who live in a low end apartment trying to get through Grad School will be left holding the bill?
Frak!
Tim Burton on February 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Oh, the HELL with that!!! My husband and I built three spec houses between 2005 and 2008 – the first two sold right away, but the third was completed right about the time the housing market tanked in our area. Suddenly, the neighborhood the house is in was a forest of “for sale” and “motivated seller” signs. We had lots of people who wanted to offer us substantially less than our mortgage was worth; I wasn’t willing to give the house away, but I didn’t want to give it back to the bank, either. So…we purchased it ourselves, as a rental property. Not the best situation, but we have managed to get (and keep) it rented; seems that many other folks weren’t able to keep their homes, or can’t (or won’t) purchase a home they can’t afford, so the rental market in our area is thriving.
I guess we should have waited, though – if I had known that Obama was going to make my mortgage payments, I would have moved my relatives into the new house. I mean, a few of them are deadbeats…
uncivilized on February 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Obviously, they don’t deserve to stay in this $800,000 house, so the answer is to rent something they can afford and not force the rest of us to buy her home for her! It’s just as outrageous for her to ask for it, as it is for Obama along with the Democrats to put this plan forward!
I see someone mentioned that the main problems were in CA, AZ, NV, FL and MI. Well, the Minutemen are reporting in their newsletter that 60% of the foreclosures causing the financial crisis are related to illegals getting mortgages. I don’t know if this is true, however, I wouldn’t doubt it!
CrusaderPatriot on February 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Yes, indeed. There’s something to be said for NOT being the homeowner when something major breaks down.
uncivilized on February 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Are you kidding me?
Im sorry your a school bus driver
and you bought an 800,000 dollar home?
This is insane..
I know people in software engineering who cant aford a 300,000 dollar home ..
So now you want the government to bail you out of 175,000 dollars?
Do you realize what it would cost the treasury if the government just bailed out everybody in the usa to the tune of 200,000 dollars (i inculded an extra 25 thousand for your car note too)..
It would cost 12 trillion dollars..
and how could you pay for this ?
through higher taxes on the rich?
I hate to tell you morons this..
but if you took every DIME the rich had you would possibly maybe come up with 1 trillion so again
where will you get the rest of the money from>?
Morons.. no wonder they are in trouble..
they cant add..
jcila on February 23, 2009 at 6:42 PM
wyntre on February 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM
I’ve almost been there myself, and you have my respect.
(former Cape Codder)
Techie on February 23, 2009 at 6:44 PM
The highlight of that clip was the image of Obama’s face pasted on the seat of a stool.
James on February 23, 2009 at 6:52 PM
You sound like a good, proud person . . . I would have been happy to help you out.
rplat on February 23, 2009 at 6:52 PM
I’m in the same boat as you. We waited because we didn’t want to buy at the top of a bubble and look where that got us. Here’s another horrible thing to think about, your savings will not only be eroded by taxes, but inflation is going to get it too, with all the money they’re printing…
Ann NY on February 23, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Yeah, I think we all have a few of them. My deadbeat relatives are all dem Libtards, wanting to suckle at mother government’s teat.
OmahaConservative on February 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM
So much word to this post. Surely to goodness she at least knows how to add and subtract, even a little bit. There is NO WAY her monthly income is anywhere near enough to manage a mortgage of that size, unless the bank was paying HER to live in the house. I mean, does she go to the grocery store and load up her cart with crap without first taking stock of how much cash is in her wallet? And then get up to the register and when the bill is $1300 and she only has $47 on her, start accusing the store of gross unfairness?
It’s because of people like this that people like me who have a property that’s paid for can’t sell it because the market is flooded with foreclosures like Madame Busdriver’s. WHEN are we going to start expecting people to exercise some personal responsibility? Stop the foreclosure? How about you cut your losses, take a short sale and go rent an apartment like every so many other poor schlubs in California have to do.
NoLeftTurn on February 23, 2009 at 6:56 PM
They’re victims? Of government interference?
Well, I now have to bail out this victim of government interference due to government interference.
I have a six-figure income and I would never consider entertaining this purchase.
I want an apology from all you victims of bad judgement in this country. My property value has tanked due to this stupidity. Enough is enough!
CattyConservative on February 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Anger!!!
Mrs. Garcia, my wife and I
madeearned a combined $426,000 last year and we couldn’t afford a f&*king $800,000. home. WTF is wrong with this picture, Mrs, Garcia? Its not the bankers fault, you’re just F-ing retarded and now my family has to pay for your stupidity. Go to hell, Mr. Garcia!Claypigeon on February 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM
What’s funny is that if they had indeed gone about buying an $800,000 house the right way (full documentation and 20% down as opposed to the likely NINJA loan she took out), she would owe $640,000 on a house worth $675,000. 95% LTV ratio isn’t great, but it would have allowed them to get out of their mortgage easily.
I spent two years in the mortgage business and my opinion is that buyers are as culpable, if not more so than “predatory” lenders. Every day I dealt with situations where people held a 90% LTV ratio, tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, two and sometimes three car notes…and against my pleading insisted on cashing out equity as opposed to using it to consolidate debt. Let these people twist in the wind to make room for responsible prospective buyers.
TheMightyMonarch on February 23, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Simple explanation as I understand it: Many had interest only loans for 3 to 5 years, some 10. This allowed them to bite off more than they could chew. That and the fact that many got in with zero down and no employment verfication. (Think democrates/social change/everybody deserves to own a home regardless of their means)
When it came time to start paying down the principle, they couldn’t make the new higher monthly payment. They knew the day was coming but figured they could always refinance their homes and get back into a new interest-only monthly payment schedule. But the housing bubble, created by the fools in congress, mostly idiot democrats, burst. Now their homes are not worth what they owe so they can’t refinance and they can’t sell. So they just walk away. Or cry, like this gal, that they have been wronged, that it’s not their fault, that “we” should bail them out.
Rod on February 23, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Of course it was the dastardly nazi lender that twisted their arm in the bank vault and sayed “sign zee paperss” “sign zee paperss now!”
Blind_Mule on February 23, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Well, I’ll tell you something,, we bought a house about 5 years ago,,, my wife lost her job less than 6 months later!!
We didn’t sit around crying about it,, we made a plan!!! She went back to college and I started working extra hours. I had days where I worked straight,, one time I clocked being awake 42 hours on two hours sleep!!! My wife worked part time on a low paying job while taking a full load of credits until she graduated as an RN!! There were times we accepted help from friends and our church,, but not the government!!! We pulled it through!! Our phone was always ringing from our creditors! These people were doing their jobs! We didn’t hold it against them,, with a lot of prayer and a lot of mercy from God,, and a lot of our own hard work,, we pulled through!! We still have our house,, we have our cars,, no repos, no foreclosures, no bankruptcy, she’s working full time in a career she loves,, and we’re doing fine! Our bills are paid!! We are now on our way to being debt free! We never went crying to the government and never once thought our neighbors should pay our bills!!
How these people can sleep with themselves I do not understand!
I have no problems with charity,, even unemployment if you need it for a time,,, but actually living and expecting someone else to pay your bills is just too much for me!
JellyToast on February 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM
The idea that jugdes can change mortage debt will be this adminstrations Obamaloo.
Shivas Irons on February 23, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Of course they don’t tell you about the maxed out credit cards, or how she paid to furnish the house (another loan), the cars or how much total debt she is in.
If one got an $800,000 home loan today – fixed 30 year, 5.2% interest- that is a monthly payment of around $5,600.
If this housing payment is 31% of their monthly income that means they would have to be making around $17,000 a month.
(The Obama plan stipulates a 31% of monthly income.)
And I doubt they qualify for an Obama bail out. Under the rules the mortgage can only be 105% and less of the current value of the house. Hers is too much: $675,000 > $800,000 is 118%.
albill on February 23, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Kick the bums out. You can buy 100 FEMA trailers for the price of her house.
Having seen the picture of the kitchen, the exterior and partial lot, that house is not worth over 200 thousand. Cheap siding and cheep cabinets. Np curtain in the kitchen?
I do not know a place in the lower 48 where you can’t build that kid of house for hundreds of thousands less. Even if it woulr require land an additional 6-8 miles out of the core price areas.
Where the ignorance comes is that there is no money down, payments to high, she doesn’t have 6 house payments in cash in case she loses income. This is an example of loan fraud.
seven on February 23, 2009 at 7:24 PM
I am posting a revised version of my comment from the Bertha Lewis/Stu Varney article:
I lost my job in 2000, and I could no longer make the payments. To avoid adversarial foreclosure, I signed voluntary foreclosure (similar to a quit claim in some places). I did kiss about $10,000 in equity good-bye. I found a new job and moved into an apartment in another state. (The voluntary foreclosure was not placed on my credit report.) She can move out too.
I am still trying to figure out how she qualified for an $800K house, and I cannot muster one milligram of compassion for this woman or her family.
I am sick and tired of these childish “adults” weeping and whining about their poor miserable conditions. T’hell with ‘em.
Pelayo on February 23, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Minta Garcia…..get in line behind Ed McMahon.
jcheney on February 23, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Is that stool … as in poo-poo? Watch the video closely. I bet she put the granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances and leather couches on her credit card!
bitsy on February 23, 2009 at 7:41 PM
One other thing about No Income Verification (NIV) loans…they were primarily for borrowers who had legitimate income but were unable to document it by normal means (W2 forms and paycheck stubs, tax returns, etc). small business owners who dealt primarily in cash were the usual recipients of these loans…they had to pay a higher interest rate but they could still get a loan.
While there were a fair share of lenders who abused NIV loans to make the loan “work” (loan officers, especially in subprime, are under constant pressure from their managers to close), there were plenty of culpable borrowers who also abused it in the interest of speculation and house flipping. Many of them got caught holding the bag in this Ponzi scheme….boo fricking hoo. I suspect that this family bought more house than they could afford with the hopes of turning a nice little profit and waited too long, either that or they were idiots enough not to realize that high prices cannot be sustained in any market.
TheMightyMonarch on February 23, 2009 at 7:41 PM
If the AC ever stops you call the landlord and say. “Your AC ain’t working.”
Pelayo on February 23, 2009 at 7:44 PM
May be wrong, but that list of the five state where the defaults are the worst, aren’t they also the states where big developers have been calling the shots for quite a while and the pols kind of looking the other way? Possible exception might be Michigan, but pretty sure I’m right about the rest.
jeanie on February 23, 2009 at 7:44 PM
So am I one of the few that figured out what I could spend every month and went to the banks to find out how much I could get for that payment? The union controlled scools haved screwed us.
Slightly OT but I am venting now. In our teachers would tell us to tell our parents to vote yes on the budget or there would be no more school. Then, when the budget failed to pass they would pass an austerity budget the was bigger than what failed to pass by vote.
cobrakai99 on February 23, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Sure bail her out also the guy down the street the couple across town.Bail out ever body that made bad dis.After all it,s only the money of hard working people who play by the rules and don,t buy thing they can,t aford.Why do you think they want to take over the banks.Like Willy Suttion said more than 70 years ago when they ask him why do you steal from the banks?( That,s were the money is he said).
thmcbb on February 23, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Bwahahahahahahahaa!!!! The flood gates are definately open when a frappin school bus driver thinks she is owed an $800,0000 home!
Does anyone else remember the grief the bailout IDIOTS gave the rest of us during the debate on the first bailout package last October? Well, you brain dead shitbags, we were right and you were wrong! EVERYONE thinks it’s their turn to get bailout because dopey bastards like you said it was a “one time deal” and would fix the problem. Any of you dumbasses want to come in here and apologize, or are you gonna hide? I’d guess a vast majority of you cowards will hide.
csdeven on February 23, 2009 at 7:54 PM
When I got married in 1970, the plan for all us young marrieds was to find a way to buy a small “starter house.” As one grew out of it, move up to a larger house, with the equity from the first house as the down payment, and so on. Always, the house you owned was well within your income.
My first house was a 1050 square feet rancher and I had plenty of money left after the payments.
It must have been the “I want it now” disease that struck a few years ago.
Pelayo on February 23, 2009 at 7:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c7PKX1j1bw
RealDemocrat on February 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I seriously doubt she dropped $140,000 for a 20% down or 80k for a 10% down, so how much did she put down? Did she roll the closing costs and loan fees?
Now her 800k house is only worth 625k, a loss of 175k in value that someone is going to eat. How is this ‘predatory’ if the buyer didn’t put up any down payment? Who eats the loss?
The bank. That’s why we’re in this mess, because the banks overextended. They should’ve gone broke so someone who was solvent could buy the assets cheap and make bucks.
But no, now we eat the loss. I thought ‘O’ was Hahvud smart.
TinMan13 on February 23, 2009 at 7:59 PM
The rise of a permanent dependency class is a natural result of government-provided welfare. When charity is voluntary, and local, the recipients correctly feel somewhat ashamed of imposing on their neighbors’ generosity, and will usually act to get away from needing that charity as quickly as possible. If they don’t, the people who voluntarily provide the charity will eventually withdraw it.
When welfare is forcibly extracted from the productive sector and presented as an entitlement, it is natural for the recipients to feel aggressively entitled to it, especially when the prevailing government culture is at pains to remove any vestige of shame from those who collect it. If you’re “entitled” to something, it’s *yours*, and anyone who tries to take it from you is a thief.
Thus we arrive at the funhouse absurdity of post-Fannie Mae America, in which people angrily demand taxpayer bailouts for houses they bought without any possibility of paying for them, enabled by a government that said they were *entitled* to those impossible mortgages… absorbing vast amounts of capital in the creation of a sea of overpriced homes that no longer generate revenue, because the occupants will never be able to pay for the mortgages. Fannie Mae was the forced conscription of the construction and financial sectors of the economy, for the purpose of creating assets which the architects of Fannie Mae *knew* would never be profitable.
Keep in mind that the people demanding free houses from Obama also believe they are entitled to health care, food, and disposable income…
Doctor Zero on February 23, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Minta and Paco were supposed to be able to flip the casa at a $200,000 profit just so they can exist here for about five or ten years and say, “we’ve leeeeeved heeeeere for ten yeeeeeeeears, we can leave now, we established a better life heeeeeeere.”
RealDemocrat on February 23, 2009 at 8:08 PM
If I go buy an Aston Martin DBS, and can’t make the payments, can I get a bailout, and a subsidy for the gasoline. I demand it. It’s my right to have the car I want.
Pelayo on February 23, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Citigroup will bail her out! Check out this crony capitalism. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19204.html
This is literally out of an Ayn Rand book. The success of a company is not determined by how competent the managers are but by who they know! It’s not your work ethic, it’s who’s palm you grease. Damn, we have fallen hard. No morality whatsoever.
True_King on February 23, 2009 at 8:18 PM
BOO FRIKKIN HOO!
I’m supposed to feel sorry for her? To this day, if anyone said I could afford an 800K home, I would laugh my ass off.
I do OK, have a waterfront home on the Chesapeake, work my ass off, pay my mortgage, I’m normal. I’m an automotive technician, bought well within my means, qualified for more, settled for comfortable. If my taxes have to go up to support this crap, I will explode!
I bought below my means, it was cheap(given where prices went) when I bought it, and it was a new home.
For anyone to cry foul after buying a million dollar home, is absolutely abhorrent, “F” them! Am I to cover their more than obvious mistake ? I think NOT!
M-14 2go on February 23, 2009 at 8:28 PM
I would suggest that Barney Frank bail her out personally!
On one level , I feel for sorry for this woman . Not because she is going to lose her home ( and no plan like refinancing can fix her problem ) but because she probably has a family that will suffer because of her ignorance.
What angers me is that she expects others to fix her problem by bailing her out.
So I would ask her a few question.
Lady , who is going to bail me and my 401k out? Should I be asked to help you out when I have lost lots of money as well? Why me lady? Did I sign your mortage too? Did I ?
jerseyjoe99982002 on February 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Ed,
You said something that made me wonder what happens of home values shoot back up after we get these people indemnified? Do we, the taxpayers, get to share in their fortune, just as we get to share in their misfortune? Say we bail this lady out, the value of her home shoots back up to 850,000, she sells, do I get a portion of her 50,000?
Sue on February 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
You guys missed unclesmrgol above or are learning to ignore liberals.
The best part of the post was the suggestion that the bank (or US gov’t) should be leaving her in the house to recover more of the $675,000 balance.
And I thought she was stupid.
IlikedAUH2O on February 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances. If I have to pay for luxury like that then I at least want it in MY house. If they gave an address I would just show up with a truck and take the kitchen.
DFCtomm on February 23, 2009 at 8:42 PM
One thing Arizona, California, Nevada and Florida also have in common: large populations of illegal aliens.
It’s no coincidence that these states are the hardest hit.
AZCoyote on February 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM
At least one of the “keep your house” plans has program where the borrower, lender and govt team up to reduce the monthly payment to something the owner can afford to pay (not more than 31% of income). The first step is by reducing the interest rate. If that doesn’t get it below 31%, then the principal is reduced, with the bank eating half, and us eating the other half. Under this plan, Minta and Paco could concievably purchase an $800,000 home for 31% of a school bus drivers salary. Half the difference between the amount owed now and the new principal is paid by us.
Minta, you’re welcome. B*tch.
BobMbx on February 23, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Don’t worry, there are millions of other American bad stories yet to be heard that you can rip apart to make yourselves feel better thinking you are right.
Speaking of ripping apart:
“Feehery:…. They go first with this huge pork bill.
O’Donnell: Name one piece of pork.
Feehery: Ahhh, bhah,,,You can’t do that to me right now, I can’t think of it right now, but it was a huge bunch of stuff that we don’t even know what’s in there.
O’Donnell: Well the reason I ask and it’s not to put you on the spot and everything, but it’s not pork. A lot of people say what it is, it’s infrastructure spending, it is spending that is stimulative. That’s what the White House says.
{snip}
O’Donnell: Let me get this straight: Republicans want to come out and be against helping people who are unemployed?
Feehery: No, they don’t want to do that, but they…
O’Donnell: But that’s what it sounds like…
Feehery: What they don’t want to is go bankrupt in the off years and that’s why Republican governors are having a hard time with this legislation … the relief is temporary, but the changes are costly forever.
O’Donnell: Well it doesn’t sound clear that the republican party knows exactly what to do quite frankly since there’s this disagreement between the government on what to do. I want to read from the Politico, which has an interesting story today which says: Republicans are hatching a political comeback by dusting off a strategic playbook written nearly two decades ago.
Its themes: Unite against Democrats’ economic policy, block and counter health-care reform and tar them from spending scandals.The key point, a playbook from two decades ago. This is really I guess the grand old party.
Is that really the best Republicans have?
Feehery: Well, hopefully not …
O”Donnell: Is anybody a thinker in that party?”
Destroyed.
The answer to her last question is no.
getalife on February 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Um, an $800,000 home for a bus driver? LOL, er, Obama may want to have his people call CNN and ask them to stop “helping” him.
I don’t think this gal is gonna be an effective saleswoman for the mortgage bailout program.
funky chicken on February 23, 2009 at 8:57 PM
You know I have my eye on a couple of mansions right at the edge of Lake Erie, where turkeys and deer and other critters wonder around without a care in the world, acres for my pets to roam, and no neighbors nearby…some of them have stables, and I can have my own *shock* docked at the Club.
Why in the world did my husband and I get a BA when we could have a house for $1.5M or so???????????????????
ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2009 at 8:59 PM
It’s people like these that put the Latino people’s reputation on the mud. Shame on her!
ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM
ProudPalinFan on February 23, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Hate to break it to you, junior, but “tax the rich” has been around for at least two hundred years, nevermind two decades. Just because the last time it was official policy was before you were born doesn’t mean it wasn’t official policy. But actually, the rich have always paid more than their fair share, it’s just that the grasping hands of Democrats always want more and are never satisfied. Heck, it’s “free” money from the government, right?
You’re a right brainless wonder, you are.
venividivici on February 23, 2009 at 9:10 PM
I don’t even need to see her papers…deport her to Cuba. She will get state funded everything there.
daesleeper on February 23, 2009 at 9:21 PM
I can’t get the video image of Mrs. Ken Lay crying when telling us the horrible story of how she and Ken only have 3 houses now….they had to sell the one in Colorado….“what are we gonna do now”….boo hoo
BobMbx on February 23, 2009 at 9:56 PM
What do you call a person who gets their home foreclosed?
No…it’s not “homeless.” The proper term is “renter.”
ynot4tony2 on February 23, 2009 at 10:01 PM
How many people do think can tell you more about their HDTV than their mortgage. Or who will stand in line for a cup of coffee for ten minutes but won’t give their lender 3 minutes to run through loan specifics. Ignorance is no excuse.
When I got my mortgage I called 3 different lenders and asked questions. I looked things up on the thing Al Gore invented to get other answers. To claim ignorance is just a dumb excuse.
This lady rolled the dice and got burned. Even if the lender stopped the foreclosure it doesn’t sound like she can make the payments anyway.
So when do I get my 401k loses back? What about when I go to Vegas and blow a grand? I don’t see a Sob story piece showing up on 60 Minutes. Boo Who.
Guess I just too cold blooded.
VikingGoneWild on February 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM
momma always said ” stupid is as stupid does”
Thanks Forrest
workingforpigs on February 23, 2009 at 10:56 PM
You must first drink the kool-aide, then have audio/video evidence of publicly saying “concensus” 100 times without giggling.
Then, and only then, you will get your check.
BobMbx on February 23, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »