Why is the banking industry stable but the average American losing his house?
Wage Peace asked:
Foreclosures are still on the rise but the banking industry has shown stability (according to the news). Shouldn’t the banks be forced to work with the current home mortgage payees instead of creating another empty home and homeless family?
Foreclosures are 11% in Las Vegas and they are mostly average Americans.
I do not agree that banks were forced into giving out loans to people who could not afford it. BofA is known for their picky mortgage banking.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 24th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Foreclosures are still on the rise but the banking industry has shown stability (according to the news). Shouldn’t the banks be forced to work with the current home mortgage payees instead of creating another empty home and homeless family?
Foreclosures are 11% in Las Vegas and they are mostly average Americans.
I do not agree that banks were forced into giving out loans to people who could not afford it. BofA is known for their picky mortgage banking.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:08 am
no freakin JOB doubleralone
September 27th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Foreclosures are around 5% of all homes right now. Still too much but certainly not the “average American.” Anna P
September 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The banking industry isn’t stable at all. And if the banks are going to help people who are in foreclosure, what’s the reward for the people who have struggled but successfully met their obligations? It’s a big mess… mJc
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Because wahington bailed out their partners in crime and they are making average citizens pay for it. blowme1371
October 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
FOR NOW, LOL. Barracuda
October 7th, 2009 at 4:15 am
The banks got bailed out, but the taxpayers didn’t! (don’t get me started on that bail out!!!) Jade
October 9th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
FORCING the banks to do something was what caused the problems in the first place. It is in the banks best interest to help many of these people stay in their homes, this whole situation didn’t do them any good. The politicians caused this problem by stickiong their nose in where it doesn’t belong. They evidently think they know the business of banking better than BANKERS. If that’s true maybe they should be bankers instead of politicians. Let the people who KNOW the business RUN the business. drwmxwll
October 10th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Ask Henry Paulson, he’s the one who gave out $2 trillion and won’t tell who he gave it to or why (other than his cronies at Goldman Sachs). Glock Schnitz
October 10th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
As Anna said the percentage of people losing there homes is really not as high as you might think, and sadly a lot of these people didn’t use good judgment in buying homes. Some bought homes they just couldn’t afford, and you have some where things happen that are not really things you can control divorce, health problems, job loss. The industry should have passed on some of the benefits they received by the government but they aren’t going to do that unless someone has a gun to there heads it isn’t in there nature.
Wage peace you have to stop and add in that Las Vegas doen’t really represent the medim home price level it’s high compared to much of America. rthimble
October 10th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
the average american is NOT losing their home. the majority of those losing their are the ones who could not/should not have qualified in years past but thanks to barney frank, ACORN, et al, these folks got more house than they could afford.
someone making only $7/hr cannot (and should not try to)afford a $300,000 or more house ZIMMER110
October 11th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
The banking industry is NOT “stable.” Until a few weeks ago I worked in the banking sector — and not as some crazed mortgage underwriter but as an IT tech. Now I’m looking for work, living on unemployment of about 20% of my former income. If that keeps up for too long, I’ll be added to the list of folks losing their homes and adding to the huge foreclosure snowball even though I don’t have some sort of “creative” loan but a fixed rate 5.5% conventional mortgage. Who’s going to bail my @$$ out?? Dances with Aardvarks
October 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am
When you stop paying the mortgage you lose your house. Doesn’t matter whether you’re “average” or not. happy2b_white
October 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Pre Planned transferrence of Wealth, the Rothschilds have done this before Tony L
October 16th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I am not at all sure that helping people stay in homes when the owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth in today’s market is doing them a favor. The sensible thing to do for most of them is to walk away and start over, which is why the banks are in trouble. The sad cases they show on TV are not typical.The government subsiding people so they continue to make mortgage payments in the really bad housing markets like Las Vegas is just another way of helping banks. meg
October 17th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Because they bought more home than they could afford and/or practiced bad fiscal habits.
Financial advisors suggest having 6-months income in savings. How many of these people did that? Good practices say you should put 20% down on a home. How many of these people did that? How many bought homes that were a larger percentage of their monthly income that is advisable? Most of these people were to busy competing with the Joneses.
We can blame the lenders all day, but the buyer started and finished the process of buying a home. Skitter
October 21st, 2009 at 10:42 am
The money ploughed into banking is not flowing back into the real economy. They have used it to buy businesses in administration and to pay for mergers and other acquisitions.
Hence the man in the street suffers either small business bankruptcy or job loss and can’t meet mortgage repayments. No matter how low the interest rates are cut.
You’re right that the banks and other brokers were never ‘forced’ to allow unsafe mortgages, but they chose to issue them based on the risky assumption that they could make them profitable by repackaging them and selling them on to another creditor. Barbe Bleue