Good morning!

Morning! Freezing ass cold outside and snowing. So much for hoping for spring, I suppose. *G*

Thanks Christy.

digg is open

Goopervilles
TARPtowns

There really are an endless number of possibilities on that, aren’t there? SIGH

The Bush Brush Ranch could house a huge Bushville.

Bushvilles, for that is what they are.

Sorry for my manners, good morning Christy and thanks for the post.

Tauscher Commons

Boehner Heights

Barrow Trace

Del Rushbo Vista

$ O Move Ins . . . come on down !

and tat wouldbe a good use for it,since i guarantee chimp will never use it again,…it was a very expensive prop,in the big GOOPER show,that is all

jeebus, how could I forget Greenspan Gables and Rubin’s Riverwalk ?!?!?

Good Monday Morning Christy
Here’s a bit of spring for you.
http://www.paghat.com/jasmine.html
Exactly what mine look like right now. But, there are some in full bloom growing on my neighbor’s fence. I’m pretty sure they won’t mind if I clip a few. They enjoyed eating the grapes of off my fence last summer. :)

I could desperately use some spring right no — so thanks heaps!

If the homeowners do not get help lets blame that nut on CNBC the latest GOP plant and as banks get more homes they can’t sell and thus more losses we point out that bad home loans are the cause.
Lets point out that giving money to the banks means giving money for bonuses, pay raises, Sheryl Crow concerts and lobbyists fighting against Obama on everything from helping homeowners, Unions etc.
It would have been cheaper to just give the cash to homeowners and get them loans based on what their homes are now worth.
It would be a more efficient use of our money. Dow’s expected to go below 7,000 today I bet the banks will need More Money!
The debt rating agencies and insurance companies rated and insured these loans they should be allowed to fail.
The banks go broke fine they reorganize the Dow drops Hedgefunds have to sell we create new banks.

You’re welcome bunches.

wow. the writer for Christy’s ‘elderly women’ link: Anita F. Hill. yep, that Professor Hill.

Do watch the YouTube if you get the chance. It’s really well done, and puts a personal face on all of this quite well.

Morning, Christy! And the beat goes on. I just heard a commercial for a local law firm advertising that they can help if you want to reduce your house payments and ease your debt load without bankruptcy. They have a loan modification program.

I have a little familiarity with the law firm through a relative that worked for them. I think this is just another money-making scheme for this firm. They are the epitome of the reason that lawyers are sometimes called shysters.

The banks are lobbying against homeowners because they want all the cash.
This argument that bankers, financial types etc won’t work unless they get paid large is a joke.
Just who in the world right now is hiring them? They should get paid less than Obama their new boss they should get no stock options just straight cash.

Good morning Christy

So the taxpayers are bailing the big guys out, losing their jobs and now losing their homes while the big guys get away with it.

Sometimes you make too much sense.
ThingsComeUndone for Housing Secretary or Something!
I hope the next time our President gives a speech, he’s got something substantial to say. I’ve had enough of cheerleader speeches. I want reform. I want real plans. I don’t need him to tell me something I already know. and, while blaming and finger pointing might feel good for a minute, it still doesn’t solve any problems.
Harumph.

It’s not quite as simple as that — smaller banks or banks that were doing thing appropriately are getting tarred with the same bad brush as the unscrupulous hacks. And all of them are having to hold more cash in reserve because of tighter lending regs brought about as a result of the shitpile loan practices — which means less ability to refinance for folks who need it.

It’s all of a piece, and we are all paying the price for bad business practices of the greedy few — who just happen to be standing there with their hands out for more bail-out money in a lot of cases. It’s infuriating.

The banks are not lending so just why are we still paying them money?
Maybe part of the reason they can’t sell their foreclosed homes at the old higher prices is because they won’t lend?
If all the banks were lending more people could buy homes.
Just what are the banks doing with the money we gave them I want an answer not speculation!
Or bank speculation on oil tankers.

Thanks Demi:)

The US government has never been there for me..ever. Outside of the usual, a standing army and the privilage of driving the interstate sandwiched between several tractor trailers the US government has never offered me a hand out or up. Does anyone now see why there is so much resentment toward bankers welfare and mortgage bailouts? As long as the US government is saddled with ‘corporation’ leaders there can be no change coming to America. The Republican corporate policies must be reversed but I am not seeing this happen. If we don’t educate the American debt consumer and imprison the criminal bankers change cannot occur. We need a blank slate to rebuild America (FDR Style) sooner than later.

I guess not enough people participated in Hootie Hoo Day on the 20th.

Wish they had — I could really use some warm weather this morning. Brrrrrr…

Am being accosted by my cat, who thinks my warm lap is hers for the taking, typing be damned. *g* And the dog has staked out her spot in front of the heater vent. Yep, it’s cold here this morning…

Trickle Downs, brought to you by Invisible Hand Developers, featuring green spans between hovel sections.

Morgan Stanley scrapped a deal to hire a supertanker for storing crude in the Gulf of Mexico, two people familiar with the situation said.

Traders for the bank canceled the booking yesterday, the people said, declining to say why or be identified because the information is private.

Frontline Ltd., the world’s biggest owner of supertankers, said Jan. 14 about 80 million barrels of crude oil are being stored in tankers, the most in 20 years.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01…..150970.htm

In checking on the Morgan Stanley buying an oil tanker full of oil and sitting on it until the price went up in the summer I found some good news.
Notice they do not say we think oil prices are going to go down now so we sold.
They are claiming the reason is private I think Obama leaned on them and stayed quiet to preserve Morgan Stanley’s *cough* reputation.
In further good news 80 million in crude stored in super tankers and that is not counting what is in ground based storage tanks? (I want that number).
Sure I think the price of oil will go up long term but short term it costs money to keep super tankers sitting idle lots of money.
I think the price of gas will drop allot how much I don’t know but they oil speculators can’t afford in this economy to keep those tankers sitting longer than the summer.
Lower gas prices should help the economy, the big three and poorer folks who count gas as a major expense.

I do know that. I really try to not paint with such a broad stroke. It’s just I saw AIG with another bailout, saw the message from Robert this morning with the video, am concerned about the future with my situation and what’s going to happen in a few months, and the stalling in DC with the bill.

I lost my contract at mortgage company that did everything right. They can write mortgages, they put out a press release that countered the word from the press that no one was writing mortgages. But if there aren’t people who can meet the underwriting qualifications because of the economic situation, it’s a nasty catch-22.

A lot of people are indirectly impacted, and yet the loser mentality that I see on the right and with some on the left drives me crazy.

I grew up in my Grandfather’s home. He was a hard-boiled scrappy railroad man. One of his many talents was the ability to swear in an almost poetic fashion. Now, if you were the target of his epic rants, which I often was, it was not pleasant. Otherwise, when he went off, you did not want to miss it. In the raiload yards and in the neighborhood his diatribes were legendary.

Life has led me in a path that very seldom, if ever, have I been in an enviroment where this profane talent was called for, allowed or condoned. The fact is, until this morning, I was unaware that this abililty was lying dormant within me.

I was getting ready for work and listening to ‘ Morning Joe.’ I was mildly annoyed
with Joe and Mika Colmes as I am most mornings. Then, they started talking about AIG
and this housing debacle and how what occurred in AIG’s London unit was not a crime. At this, I started ranting and raving in a manner not heard since my Grandfather passed away decades ago.

I was home alone, so neither the guilty or innocent heard any of it, but I felt better and I am sure somewhere my Grandfather is smiling.

Now, since I was the only one home, no harm was done and, of course, since the people I

It’s beyond frustrating, isn’t it? I see that with so many banks around here, too — really solid ones that did everything right and yet are stuck in this same whirlwind. Ugh.

Morgan Stanley, led by John Mack, had earlier agreed to pay $68,000 a day to rent the 2 million-barrel carrier Argenta, according to reports That works out at $1.02 a barrel a month for a 2 million-barrel consignment.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01…..150970.htm

Hmm $1.02 barrels a month on 2 million barrels lets drop the .02 cents thats 2 million dollars a month just for Morgan Stanley.
But with 80 million stored in super tankers at what I presume to be the same price thats 80 million a month the oil speculators risk losing to break even they planed to wait for june so if oil prices do not rise by then enough to cover their costs of buying the oil back when oil prices were higher let alone the 80 million a month total to store it.
Well I hope the banks DID Not loan the oil speculators the money to speculate or they will need more cash I am not sure that we have the cash to save them if they did.
Just who is speculating on oil Hedge funds? Oil Companies? the Saudis? (Ossama may need to find a job)
Lots of folks could lose their shirts.
The Bush family are oil men could we get that lucky?

Morning, Christy. I left you a link at the bottom of the Sunday Cuppa thread.

Oldgold sometimes you have to swear sometimes like when confronted with Joe and Mika’s level of Hackery its fun:)

Hopefully it will demonstrate that bigger is not always better. II think it’s just another rouse that allows the power and wealth to stay at the top. It’s an exclusive club and they don’t like to share. Throw in a corrupt government and it a recipe for disaster.

all of them are having to hold more cash in reserve because of tighter lending regs brought about as a result of the shitpile loan practices — which means less ability to refinance for folks who need it.

what tighter lending regs?

maybe you mean the fdic fees which are going up?

One wonders why banks push foreclosures which more often than not diminish the value of their security. I suspect that not only do they get bailouts, but they mean to fix their loss so they can write it off. They not only get bailouts. They get tax relief.

In states where foreclosure is equitable, it may be predatory lending practices will be recognized as a defense to foreclosure. It will take a brave lower court judge to go for it, but it might succeed in an appellate court. Unfortunately, at regular rates, the legal fees are way beyond the means of the foreclosed homeowner. Perhaps lawyers on this list or others will contribute their services. We need not take this foreclosure mess sitting down and we need not wait for legislative help (ie a bankruptcy cramdown). The legal tools are there. We have only to use them.

re the banks. it does seem as though we are doing things ass-backwards: using taxpayer $ to support the insolvent banks instead of what, for example mason says we should (from last week’s written testimony):

Solvent institutions need neither government assistance nor intervention, but can still utilize government funds to finance the purchase of failed-bank assets to relieve asset market overhang, which is discussed in further detail below. To deny solvent institutions additional capital to address the economic situation is to penalize them for creating economically value-creating assets. Policy needs to focus, therefore, on relieving the economy of the value-destroying loans produced by the now-insolvent banks, restructuring the marginally solvent banks, and building upon the existing value creating business platforms of solvent banks to foster sound economic growth.

flacking mason again, just because it’s nice to have people testifying before congress make sense. if only the dems would listen.

I am very much concerned with the plight of homeowners who through no fault of their own, except for buying into the mistaken notion that prices would always go up, now face foreclosure as a result of having taken out equity that didn’t really exist.

But I am even more concerned that no effort be made — none! — to “prop up” existing prices, as that would only exacerbate the problem in the long run. Housing prices are simply way too high by any kind of standard except people’s wish lists. They must and will come down. When they do, sufficiently, others like my wife and myself will be able to afford a home of our own.

If you bought into the “to hell with you, I’ve got mine” philosophy of the lasts 20 years, there will be hell to pay. If there is a supreme being, She is not surprised…

John, are you, perchance, from CA? I ask because house prices here were about half of CA prices (or less) at their highest! Now they are about one quarter of the CA prices, and we’re about ready to see bottom! If not, the market will be deluged with speculators wanting to make a quick killing, with out of state owners who don’t care about the property, just the income stream, and possibly other real estate quirks that are not necessarily good for the stability of the area or the market! And they’re not going to be good for buyers like you and your wife. Ever seen bidding wars before? I’m not for price supports, but I think about a 40% loss is about enough to represent a balancing of the bubble values to more realistic levels.

When you look at the hundreds of billions that the Treasury has laid for banks, and the trillions that the Fed has made available to them, you begin to understand that a $75 billion program to help all homeowners is chump change. Obama’s program had no cramdowns, helped only slightly upside-down loans, had relatively high interest rates, and payments (31% of monthly income) that would start increasing after 5 years.

Jane last night had some changes pushed by Tauscher. The stupidest of these was that bankruptcy judges could only adjust the principal on mortgages down to fair market value according to various government guidelines. This ignores that housing prices are still falling. I originally used an average figure of a 40% cramdown to bring housing prices back in line with pre-bubble prices. The delay in implementing real help to homeowners and a lot of other things has allowed the economy to worsen considerably. Now we are seeing secondary deflationary effects and this could push the cramdowns needed even higher into the 50% range. What we are seeing with proposals like Tauscher’s is an attempt to keep the pain of the housing crisis largely on homeowners and off the banks. However, the worsening economy will likely make whatever comes out of Congress irrelevant. A good bill would help but that isn’t in the cards. A bad bill will simply make the depression broader, deeper, and longer.

We didn’t have much of a housing bubble here — only in very small neighborhood pockets. Pricing in WV has remained fairly consistent with only small increases through the years because we’re a fairly stable market without a lot of transient population moving in for the most part. FWIW

A good bill would help but that isn’t in the cards

was hoping. but of course you are correct.

too much magical thinking on my part this morning.

Does the word “predatory” begin to sink in for the skeptics when grandma gets thrown out (PDF) on the streets — especially since elderly women were prime targeted demographics?

What do we call the homeless camps this time around if these stop-gap bills fail? Hooverville has already been taken. So, should it be Blue Dog Tent City? Heritage-villes? Or GOParty of No-where-villes?

Rove Retirement Villas?
Republican Senior Cottages?
Shrub Senior Shanties?

Bill isn’t inked yet and we’re not giving up, thanks. Jane has more…

I think a more reasoned and likely less expensive approach to aid homeowners would be an across the board decrease of 1-2% interest on existing mortgages. Then if people could afford those payments they can remain in their homes if not … they likely got themselves in way over their heads and should not be rewarded. For mortgages through companies receiving bailout funds they get nothing for this concession (if the homes foreclosed they’d be out more anyway), for mortgages through other companies the ‘homeowner bailout funds’ would be used to pay the equivalent of ‘points’ for reducing the interest rates for those loans – no courts, no additional paperwork, no costs to the homeowner (other than what the bailouts are costing us anyway). Since the majority of a payment in the initial years of a mortgage goes to interest this would likely help many more homeowners than the proposed plan and would, I think (though admittedly I haven’t sat down and done the math for comparison), be more cost effective.

Maybe part of the reason they can’t sell their foreclosed homes at the old higher prices is because they won’t lend?
If all the banks were lending more people could buy homes.

THIS is a powerful argument to use when someone asks why we say Wall St. is a bunch of idiots (remember Sen. McCaskill’s remarks?).

They (the ingrates) also complained when FDR saved capitalism for them.

When you look at the hundreds of billions that the Treasury has laid for banks, and the trillions that the Fed has made available to them, you begin to understand that a $75 billion program to help all homeowners is chump change.

The big banks handle hundreds of billions of bucks, so it takes a lot to shore them up. The mortgage problem is much larger, so what do you do if there isn’t enough cash in the world? You devise a plan which gets by on less money and stretch it out over time. The kind of solution determines how much money is needed. It isn’t the same as handing the homeowner money to make their payments. It’s paying for the process to fix the mortgages.

Yes, Obama’s plan didn’t have foreclosure bankruptcy cramdowns. But, Sen. Durbin has been pushing this idea for some time and will likely get it passed. We need a lot of ways to fix these problems because there’s a lot of these problems and (one presumes) we don’t have forever to get it fixed.

I think a more reasoned and likely less expensive approach to aid homeowners would be an across the board decrease of 1-2% interest on existing mortgages.

Hey, I know somebody hereabouts named Blue. Woo hoo.

Last fall a lot of ideas were discussed and naturally a few of them were how to fix a lot of mortgages in one stroke. People more familiar with the issue than me said there was too much variety and it just wasn’t possible. I remember one C-SPAN show where FDIC chair Sheila Bair said that. It’s really a shame since that would’ve kept a lot of people in their homes and it would’ve shortened the crisis considerably.