Saturday, March 8, 2008

Moratorium on foreclosures?

There are a lot of different bills floating around state and federal governments these days proposing various reprieves for subprime borrowers in danger of foreclosure. One of the most far-reaching plans is a bill being pushed by two state legislators proposing a one-year moratorium on foreclosures in New York to allow at-risk mortgage holders to remain in their homes while they work with their lenders to restructure loans.

Bills Push Moratorium on New York Foreclosures

The bill is currently being reviewed by the State Legislature and has gained wide support from both Democrats and Republicans—it currently has 71 Assembly sponsors and 19 Senate sponsors.

A host of city officials joined the original sponsors, Republican Senator Frank Padavan of Queens and Democratic Assemblyman Jim Brennan of Brooklyn, at Brooklyn Borough Hall Friday to rally support for the bill, whose most recent precedent was a 1933 law imposing a one-year moratorium on foreclosures in New York State.

“We’re not calling it a moratorium,” a Spitzer spokesman said of the bill. “But it does give borrowers a little extra time to have a conversation with their lenders.”


Anonymous said...

Good idea!
It should now be followed by a moratorium on
over development.

Wait a moment folks.....this stop the clock idea
came out of the 1930s great depression era?

I though we weren't supposed to be in a recession.
It sure seems like we are.

It's just a question of how deep up to our asses
that we're already into it!

Anonymous said...

This would be idiotic and do much more harm than good. Pass this law and the economy would be in much worse shape than it already is.

Liman said...

Face it. Lenders may have been too willing to approve mortgages, but too many borrowers were just irresponsible. Stopping (or even slowing) foreclosures will just raise interest rates, making home buying harder, and making home selling harder, too.

And that glib line about letting borrowers have more time to "have a conversation" with their banks is nonsense. "Conversation" isn't going to help.

Instead of leadership, we get more pandering to people who usually have only themselves to blame.

Anonymous said...

Abe Lincoln asked visitors: "How many legs would a dog have if you called his tail a leg?" Visitors always answered: "Five". Lincoln would scold the visitor: "The dog would have 4 legs. Calling his tail a leg won't make it so."

So, Spitzer doesn't want to call a moratorium a moratorium. So, then let's call it an idiotic disaster.

Who would lend mortgage money (or auto, or home improvement, tuition, etc.) in NY once any lender can be bankrupted by a pandering politician?

For years, politicians blared that the financial industry was refusing to lend to those who could not possibly repay. The industry was threatened until they decided to lend to anyone, with or without credit.

Now, the same politicians who created the problem tell us they can solve it by putting lenders out of business.

Now, the financial industry doesn't have clean hands. The big lenders knew that this was the end result of predatory politics. The working, creditworthy taxpayers would be forced to pick up the tab for both the predatory politicians and the lenders who go bankrupt.

If my predatory borrower neighbor find that he doesn't have to repay (while I do) because the predatory politician will try to unload his unpaid debt on me, won't I fix my problem by spending my mortgage payment money on other, more desirable luxuries?

The unbreakable law is: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's place a moratorium on stupidity and greed>

Oh, oh. That would damage Spitzer and the predatory borrowers.

Anonymous said...

This is a horrible idea. If the banks can't get rid of the property on their books (even at a loss!) the lending will completely stop. If they know borrowers can not make payments and stay in the house, why would they continue to lend money? No money lending = no economy. Are we really that helpless that we are unloading all the blame on the banks? Society should take a little responsibilty for taking an adjustable loan or buying a home that was beyond their means. Either make your payments, give the bank back the house or file bankruptcy. This law would be aweful for our economy.

Anonymous said...

A year won't make a difference,
if such a moratorium is put in place or not.

Our country is about to be overtaken
by a major recession that's already visible
on the horizon.

And the gloomy weather is headed our way.

It was created by our local governments,
the banks, the real estate/building interests,
and Congress financing a poorly run war !

Hold's going to be a bumpy ride!

Anonymous said...

Take note:

Have any of you
"kick-'em-out-of -their-homes" posters
considered what it will cost us taxpayers
to house, pay welfare, etc.
to all of these evicted homeowners ?

we should go back to a debtors' prison system
paid for by the State?

you'd better run that thought past your gray cells
and have your calculators handy
(with a fresh supply of batteries) !

Remember .....
the "Great Depression" happened anyway,
in spite of the banks throwing farmers off their land and selling it off for 10cents (?) on the dollar.

It was government sponsored programs
like the NRA and Social Security Act, etc.
that eventually helped to bring us back.

Does anyone out there
want to volunteer to give up
their Social Security (or Medicare) benefits ?
Maybe some of you yuppies think
you'll never need them.

taxpayer said...

Now, we don't care what Spitter calls an idiotic moratorium.

He thought the New York Taxpayers were all prostitutes there to be screwed, but without payment.

Perhaps that's rape. Gallagher, can you help make the distinction?

taxpayer said...

"Have any of you "kick-'em-out-of -their-homes" posters considered what it will cost us taxpayers to house, pay welfare, etc. to all of these evicted homeowners?

Maybe we should go back to a debtors' prison system paid for by the State?"

Here's news, bleeding heart, every foreclosure for non-payment of mortgage is an opportunity for a credit-worthy home buyer to get a new home for a bargain, as long as the lender is repaid.

Why is repaying the lender an evil action? Even seven year olds understand the fairness and necessity of repaying a debt of even a nickel.

Why is inability to make payment a noble characteristic?

Anonymous said...

I don't think I'm a "bleeding heart "
and certainly not a BIGOT/ RACIST
(like yourself , perhaps)
just doing some arithmetic and accounting.

But you've got a bleeding head problem
and need to see a specialist PDQ because
YOUR BRAINS appear to be leaking out !

Anonymous said...

Oops....a minor correction:

Your BRAINS are dripping from your ass!