I won't be able to afford it without the liberal Democrat controlled congress and MOST importantly the Obama administration.

Quote:A bill to give judges authority to alter loan terms for primary residences may be the quickest way to arrest the housing market's collapse. Most Democrats in the House and Senate support that plan. President Barack Obama told Democratic leaders Friday he also backs it, according to a Senate aide who was not authorized to be quoted by name.

Fight building over judges redoing mortgages

Cool everyone needs to join in the fun ... buy a house you can't afford, declare it your primary residence, then file for bankruptcy. It so easy even a Democrat



can do it.

Holy shiite, I'm going house shopping today!!!!!!

It's a double edge sword. On one hand you save the value of everyone else's property in the neighborhood, you also avoid the expense of foreclosure, yet on the other hand you get people who couldn't afford homes a break. I think when they renegotiate the mortgage the owner's credit will be the same as if they went bankrupt, so there will be a penalty. If saving someone $500-1000/mo to keep them in their homes I think that's a win for everyone.

This "modification" amendment is essentially an extension of the of the "cram down" provisions already in the Bankruptcy Code.

Thye are going to have to go radical surgery on the Bankruptcy Code anyway, starting with repealing the the 2005 Amendments and rewriting Chapter 7 and 13.

(01-25-2009 02:21 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

I won't be able to afford it without the liberal Democrat controlled congress and MOST importantly the Obama administration.

Quote:A bill to give judges authority to alter loan terms for primary residences may be the quickest way to arrest the housing market's collapse. Most Democrats in the House and Senate support that plan. President Barack Obama told Democratic leaders Friday he also backs it, according to a Senate aide who was not authorized to be quoted by name.

Fight building over judges redoing mortgages

Cool everyone needs to join in the fun ... buy a house you can't afford, declare it your primary residence, then file for bankruptcy. It so easy even a Democrat



can do it.

Funny. I thought this was your house.




BTW, I have seen that house in person and you can't afford it. Also, Rhode Island may be a little to blue for your liking.

Robert, Did you move into this tent after the Israelis leveled your home?



This is where most liberals should live...

(01-25-2009 10:19 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Robert, Did you move into this tent after the Israelis leveled your home?



This is where most liberals should live...

SO you are admitting the Israelies were hitting civilian targets? It is about time. They were also using white phospherus in civilian areas(which I guess is not legal) that we sold the Israelies. Any more reasons why they hate us?

(01-25-2009 10:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  SO you are admitting the Israelies were hitting civilian targets? It is about time.

Who has ever said otherwise? Do you not understand THEY HIDE BEHIND CIVILIANS? They hide in schools and churches and homes. Where do you suggest Israel drop their bombs? Whoops, never mind. Dumb question. I should expect a dumb answer.

These arze holes aren't on military bases. They're not on a battle field. When you launch a rocket from a backyard, expect incoming in return. Figure it out Robert.

When they phone homes and drop pamplets, who do you think they are warning to get out of the way? Hint: you have never received a courtesy call, have you?

(01-25-2009 10:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Any more reasons why they hate us?

You.

(01-25-2009 10:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  SO you are admitting the Israelies were hitting civilian targets? It is about time. They were also using white phospherus in civilian areas(which I guess is not legal) that we sold the Israelies. Any more reasons why they hate us?

Rob, I don't know much about Gaza but I've never heard of them having a military base any where. Weapons are stored in houses and you can't distinguish between military and civilian. As for reasons why they hate us, are you implying that if we stopped selling phospherous shells to Israel Hamas would love us?

BYW, when Hamas lobs rockets and mortar shells into Israel are they not targeting civilians?

Look, civilian targets have been hit in every war in the history of mankind.
Does that mean civilians are being targeted?
No.
There are huge differences between (1) intentionally targeting civilians, (3) recklessly lobbing weapons into civilian areas without regard to who gets hit, and (3) inevitable collateral damage when legitimate military targets are attacked.
I would expect a civilized army to eschew (1) and (2) and to minimize (3). Completely eliminating (3) is impossible, even more so when the opposition uses women and children as human shields and otherwise protected locations as foxholes and ammo dumps.
Hamas clearly engages in (2), if not (1), when it lobs rockets into Israel. I have not seen evidence that Israel has engaged in (1) or (2). They have caused some category (3) damage, but so has every other army in history.

(01-26-2009 12:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Look, civilian targets have been hit in every war in the history of mankind.
Does that mean civilians are being targeted?
No.
There are huge differences between (1) intentionally targeting civilians, (3) recklessly lobbing weapons into civilian areas without regard to who gets hit, and (3) inevitable collateral damage when legitimate military targets are attacked.
I would expect a civilized army to eschew (1) and (2) and to minimize (3). Completely eliminating (3) is impossible, even more so when the opposition uses women and children as human shields and otherwise protected locations as foxholes and ammo dumps.
Hamas clearly engages in (2), if not (1), when it lobs rockets into Israel. I have not seen evidence that Israel has engaged in (1) or (2). They have caused some category (3) damage, but so has every other army in history.

If there is any group guilty of War Crimes in Gaza, its Hamas.

There have been many accusations that Israel has committed war crimes and massacres in fighting the Palestinians, up to and including charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide. But these accusations do not hold up according to the Geneva Protocols, even with regard to the operations in Jenin, and the targeted killings.

The "Geneva Protocol" in question is the "Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." This lays down the "law" for situations where an army finds itself fighting non-conventional forces that themselves operate from within civilian areas: The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas. Those who are actually fighting the war are not considered "protected persons." Only civilians are granted the status of "protected persons" whose rights cannot be violated with impunity.

The Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hamas, the Jenin terrorists, Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, and all of the other terrorist groups that hide among civilian populations, in one sentence: This sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section 28.

It reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

This sentence appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention precisely to deal with situations like the ones the Israelis faced.

Here's how: Israel is at war with Hamas and Palestinian militant organizations wreaking terrorist havoc. Hamas and al-Aqksa, et al are at war with Israel. But instead of separating themselves from the general population in military camps and wearing uniforms, as required by international law, Hamas members and other Palestinian terrorists try to use civilians - the "protected persons" mentioned in 3:1:28 - as living camouflage. To prevent such a thing from happening, international law explicitly gives Israel the right to conduct military operations against military targets under these circumstances.

Again, let's check out that 3:1:28 sentence: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." There were plenty of "protected persons" in Jenin (and applicable to other areas). The Palestinian terrorists wanted it that way: they choose to live in their camps with their families and hundreds of others around them so that they would serve as human shields, knowing that the Israeli army is reluctant to attack those areas like the Russians did in Grozny.

And because the terrorists do set up in civilian areas, they are wholly responsible for what happens to their "protected persons" - that is, the civilian population where they hide out.

That's what the very next sentence of the Fourth Geneva Convention says: "the party to the conflict in whose hand protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents."

Let's translate: The "party to the conflict" here is Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqska, etc. Because they choose to live in and fight from a civilian setting, the "protected persons" are deemed to be "in his [their] hands." And since they are in the terrorists'', these terrorists "is[are] responsible for the treatment accorded to them."

This is mainstream thinking about Geneva Convention issues, by noted legal scholars. The Palestinians fight from within civilian areas- therefore civilians - who knowingly support and give aid to the terrorists- lose any and all immunity from Geneva Convention rights - and that would include human shields. Israel is therefore in no violation according to the Geneva Conventions - whereas the Palestinians, if they had been signatories- would have no rights of protection, since in Jenin, and in other places where there is conflict, they have abrogated those rights to which they are claiming that Israel is violating

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles...031128.asp

.

Quote:Fight building over judges redoing mortgages

The chief lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association, Steve O'Connor, said new homebuyers would end up paying higher interest and bigger down payments if lenders are saddled with the risk that a judge could change mortgage terms.

"We're going to defend the industry" against "bad public policy," O'Connor said.

WOW !!!!!!

What a change of heart from a 'Bailed Out Band of Thieves" who were just crying over their spilled milk in November .....

And who were the Lobbyist working to "Defend the Borrower" from huckster loan companies ???

That's the Plan my Gubment !!!!!! Bail them out so they can SPIT IN YOUR FACE big time .....

After all, the Joe Tax Payers will pick up the Check :ncaabbs:

.

This is a simple plan, really.

1. Feds take preferred stock in banks.
2. Judges restructure troubled mortgages.
3. Banks take huge losses, wiping out equity.
4. Banks take bankruptcy, wiping out common shareholders.
5. Feds now own the banks.

And don't blame the democrats. It's the Bushies who got this ball rolling.

(01-26-2009 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is a simple plan, really.

1. Feds take preferred stock in banks.
2. Judges restructure troubled mortgages.
3. Banks take huge losses, wiping out equity.
4. Banks take bankruptcy, wiping out common shareholders.
5. Feds now own the banks.

And don't blame the democrats. It's the Bushies who got this ball rolling.

What do you think of the plan to form the "Bad Bank" that buys up all the garbage paper to get it off the balance sheets? That is its only function.

The other option floated yesterday was direct Nationalization of the Banks.. which would send us into a depression in 6 months.

(01-26-2009 08:43 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-26-2009 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is a simple plan, really.
1. Feds take preferred stock in banks.
2. Judges restructure troubled mortgages.
3. Banks take huge losses, wiping out equity.
4. Banks take bankruptcy, wiping out common shareholders.
5. Feds now own the banks.
And don't blame the democrats. It's the Bushies who got this ball rolling.

What do you think of the plan to form the "Bad Bank" that buys up all the garbage paper to get it off the balance sheets? That is its only function.
The other option floated yesterday was direct Nationalization of the Banks.. which would send us into a depression in 6 months.

The "Bad Bank" idea is similar in concept to what we did with FDIC/FSLIC and the RTC in the 1990ish banking/S&L crisis. Having worked on that effort for a year and a half, I can say that it was too bureaucratically driven and that cost the taxpayers millions. For one thing RTC really did not pursue deadbeat borrowers nearly hard enough, and that is unlikely to happen here. But I like that approach better than the preferred stock approach.

The plan I outlined is just a way to get to direct nationalization without facing the adverse public opinion, since every step of the way can be portrayed as a reasonable response to a crisis.

We as a nation are facing a cash flow problem. We need to fix that to fix the economy. I see nothing in the stimulus plan to do anything about that.

(01-25-2009 10:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  SO you are admitting the Israelies were hitting civilian targets? It is about time. They were also using white phospherus in civilian areas(which I guess is not legal) that we sold the Israelies. Any more reasons why they hate us?

Of course they hit civilian targets. That is where the coward Hamas operatives hide out. Israel had no choice if they wanted to secure their own areas. Remember, Hamas was trying to kill Israeli civilians. Israel was trying to kill Hamas militants.

(01-26-2009 02:46 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-25-2009 10:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  SO you are admitting the Israelies were hitting civilian targets? It is about time. They were also using white phospherus in civilian areas(which I guess is not legal) that we sold the Israelies. Any more reasons why they hate us?

Of course they hit civilian targets. That is where the coward Hamas operatives hide out. Israel had no choice if they wanted to secure their own areas. Remember, Hamas was trying to kill Israeli civilians. Israel was trying to kill Hamas militants.

So which Israeli news source did you get that from(that would include many American news sources as well)?

(01-26-2009 02:55 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-26-2009 02:46 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-25-2009 10:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  SO you are admitting the Israelies were hitting civilian targets? It is about time. They were also using white phospherus in civilian areas(which I guess is not legal) that we sold the Israelies. Any more reasons why they hate us?

Of course they hit civilian targets. That is where the coward Hamas operatives hide out. Israel had no choice if they wanted to secure their own areas. Remember, Hamas was trying to kill Israeli civilians. Israel was trying to kill Hamas militants.

So which Israeli news source did you get that from(that would include many American news sources as well)?

I'm sorry, but what part of my statement are you disagreeing with?

(01-25-2009 08:47 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-25-2009 02:21 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

I won't be able to afford it without the liberal Democrat controlled congress and MOST importantly the Obama administration.

Quote:A bill to give judges authority to alter loan terms for primary residences may be the quickest way to arrest the housing market's collapse. Most Democrats in the House and Senate support that plan. President Barack Obama told Democratic leaders Friday he also backs it, according to a Senate aide who was not authorized to be quoted by name.

Fight building over judges redoing mortgages

Cool everyone needs to join in the fun ... buy a house you can't afford, declare it your primary residence, then file for bankruptcy. It so easy even a Democrat



can do it.

Funny. I thought this was your house.




BTW, I have seen that house in person and you can't afford it. Also, Rhode Island may be a little to blue for your liking.

Hey the way things are going, you'll be begging for a spot like that. Forget scorched earth we are now looking a nuked earth.