Obama Plan To Modify Second Mortgages Has Yet To Help One Homeowner

Source: Huffington Post

Nearly a year after the Obama administration announced a plan to help up to 1.5 million struggling homeowners modify their second mortgages, not a single homeowner has gotten any assistance.

The program, a part of the administration's $75 billion anti-foreclosure initiative, was supposed to induce mortgage servicers to coordinate payment reductions on additional mortgages when the first mortgage is modified under the administration's Home Affordable Modification Program.

But it's never gotten off the ground.

Housing experts say addressing second mortgages is essential in tackling the foreclosure crisis. For many homeowners, particularly those who owe more than their house is worth, modifying only one of the two mortgages is not enough to prevent foreclosure.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/obama-plan-to-modify-seco_n_487474.html

From the same virtual rag and writer:

"Only about a third of the homeowners who have successfully completed the trial period of the Obama administration's mortgage modification program have been offered permanent relief, according to new federal data obtained by the Huffington Post."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/obama-foreclosure-prevent_n_492376.html

120,000 - 180,000 permanent mods isn't great by any stretch, but it's not a complete failure.

before I make my judgment of stupid policy failure that helped practically nobody to complete and utter failure.

Either way, this has epic fail written all over it.

Here is the thing, they can't give it back as an optional measure, an agreement to sign up for the program. The whole structure is asking them to help, screw that, tell them, make them, or just simply tell them they no longer own something. If they want to help hand over the control that makes them not able to help. Within money first system they can not help, they should be asking for regulation so the business does not have to hurt people to compete.

The whole point is that they get to choose. The choice they made is to make money, it is the choice they will always make, and a company is liable to its shareholders to make profit, so if it does not make profit, they can't do it.

So the situation has to be either a give away to banks, or break them in half by not letting them be the one that gets choice on how society runs, instead let what is best for most people based on representation decide. They want money to be the thing that decides. And if they make a choice that is bad for most people, then the power of what is right for most people should rectify that with the ramifications of that choice.

It is not that complicated, if you want profit motive to run a society, then everything in that society will have to make money for someone above the person making the decision, money will always have to go up the hierarchy of money. Until things get top heavy and fall over.

The plan was first announced last April. In August the Treasury Department released guidelines on how the program would work. Months passed before any servicers signed up. More than five weeks ago, Bank of America, the nation's largest servicer with about three million second liens, signed an agreement to join, but a bank spokeswoman said the firm is still awaiting final guidelines from Treasury before proceeding. A Treasury spokeswoman said the firm could technically begin the process now.

It will have to be in there profit interest to move forward on it.


I do not give them the respect nor the power to have to ask them "Please sir may I have another bowl of porrage."


Pass a law, any bank bigger then some size is cut in half, any bank that does not do 'so and so' based on helping society is broke in half. Problem solved. If money goes overseas, any country that money goes to has to pay it out of some tariff. Not to mention reprisal against the person leaving, since it would be while owing some fee.

If it lead to a collapse of the system, well what is so good about a system where if it does not make more hardship for a group below you, and profit a group above you, it does not happen?

It is not about being able to do any of this, it is about people wanting, or not wanting to challenge, big money or money interest making societal rules.



On a side note, If that is the choice of how to rule, I would rather give them ownership of all the money in existence, every penny, while trying to help a few people. Because I know where their excesses will lead them. And if they can't see that, what can you do if you are not willing to scold the little children and there selfish ways that hurt other people. Not with fines, but with time to think about things in prison.


I would guess there response would be that they know how to use money better for society. How has that worked out? Or they would say, they don't care. Or that they can do what they want. And as far as fraternal organizations, every man is my brother, and the comment in the New Yorker where the bankers were called brethren, is an invite to self superiority, and that always leads to worse things.

being helped.And much of that has to do with the bureaucracy.
Trying to obtain relevant information is next to impossible
And this is NOT a new problem, It's dogged this program from day one.

I love how all the sources of information and all of the people who stood
fast with us during the eight years of Re-Pukery are now so quickly and easily
disregarded and disparaged.

Why is that boy's :)

and all the holes were clearly spelled out, they went with it anyway.