ACORN Home Break In

[wowzers]

http://www.abc2news.com/mostpopular/story/Acorn-Breaks-into-Home/9SzMKGCA6E6YqJ9cSAZmKw.cspx


The third comment rings home.

[mule64]

man...its a good thing Obama just gave them so much money, they might need it for bail.:funny1:

[PeaceFrog]

Oh that's cool. You think it's OK for a banker to take advantage of someone this way just because they're better at math.

[mule64]

like that has anything to do with it, she probably could never afford the house to start with and its folks like this that are fucking the rest of us, they put billions of $ into the stimulus for people like this to pay a down payment and to pay rent for them. Let her use that program. Why should WE pay her mortgage?

[wowzers]

A banker didn't take advantage of her if she makes that much and thought she could pay that mortgage. That isn't even considered being bad at math. She isn't even in the same book as math.

[PeaceFrog]

A banker didn't take advantage of her if she makes that much and thought she could pay that mortgage. That isn't even considered being bad at math. She isn't even in the same book as math.

That's why it's so surprising to me that a banker would give her a loan. You'd expect a banker to be good at math.

[mule64]

if it were not for the fair housing act, which was and still is a dem project they are proud of, she would not have qualified for the loan. They wanted and pushed for banks to make these loans, and it failed, and now you blame it on the banks? Its your fault again and you (Dems) will not take any blame.

[PeaceFrog]

The fair housing act?

The fair housing act, according to Wikipedia prohibits discrimination against race, sex, etc. when giving loans.

It's the bank's responsibility to do a credit check and verification of income.

[mule64]

My bad, its the Community reinvestment act that f-ed things up and started the ball rolling.

[Joker]

If you do the math, she CAN afford the house, she just can't afford anything else. :wink:

"She lost this home in September, after owning it since 2001. When things got tough she struggled to make her payments. Her mortgage? $1995 a month. Her income? $2200."

[Elphaba]

what is the history of the mortgage? is there predatory lending involved? there aren't enough facts in this article to make a judgement.

my next door neighbors lost their home due to scumbag banks taking advantage of them, banks we just bailed the fuck out. nice people who trusted unscrupulous lenders and theiving contractors, lost everything. the bank screwed them and then the bank screwed the rest of us and now who are you all pissed off at? un fucking real.

it does not matter whether these homeowners take the mortgage bailout (obama administration, gop suggests it was originally mccain's idea) or the banks take the bank bailout (bush administration), either way YOU are paying for the bad debt.

either some family stays in their home and continues to pay the mortgage and pay taxes to keep your community's economy afloat or the house goes into foreclosure, housing values drop the bank gets no money (so they ask the gov't for more of your bailout money), no taxes are paid and your community's schools and whatever else comes from your homeowners' taxes goes to crap and everything goes in the shitter.

[deadheadskier]

There really isn't enough information to make a fair judgement on this other than the ACORN activist is a nut job and in the wrong for breaking into this home.

I for one think that dropping home values is a good thing. The values of homes was ridiculous around the country, actually they still are and it doesn't make any sense to me to prop up the home values. If this woman has an income of $2200 a month, she shouldn't be a home owner of anything greater in value than 100K and even that is stretching it.

The bank and the borrower both gambled and lost, which to me is the reoccurring theme in many of the foreclosures out there. They both assumed that the value of the homes would continue to rise at unrealistic rates, so that when the mortgage re-set, the borrow could sell it and get out of the home with a tidy profit and the bank would get paid off. Didn't happen. They both gambled and they both should lose.

Too much greed on both sides if you ask me.

[Elphaba]

if they both lose the rest of us lose as well. for those of you who want it to fail i hope you have all your ducks in a row and you don't lose your job because when the bottom falls out it is going to fall out hard. everything supported by homeowner taxes that you depend on is going to suck ass. your state, county and local gov't is going to up taxes on everything else to make up for it to keep your services going. or things will be cut. one way or another we are all going to pay.

[deadheadskier]

To me it all depends on the individual situation. Not everyone got loans they could afford and they should be equally at fault as the banks.

When we applied for a mortgage last spring, we could have secured a loan for more than double what we took out. We'd love to have a bigger home than what we have, but we don't 'need' a larger home. We were ultra conservative and put ourselves in a place that we could afford on the lesser of our two incomes should we have to do it. We'd struggle, but could make it happen. Hopefully we're not faced with that. Our next home, we'll take a bit bigger risk on, but only when we have enough resources saved up such that again, we could sustain ourselves on one income if we need to.

If a borrower was being responsible like we have been and got into trouble with a shady loan re-setting to a ridiculous rate, yes bail them out. However, if someone decided to gamble and take on an interest only loan to buy their 'dream home'; I really don't have too much sympathy for them when they default or the bank that loses out as well. If it forecloses, a responsible borrower will be able to get into that home at a realistic price. Prices on modest sized homes are still WAY to high for the average middle class individual to afford without an extravegent loan package, the likes of which got us into this mess in the first place. Artificially propping things up will only lengthen in time what has been an unsustainable housing market.

The chips need to continue to fall and values need to drop down to sustainable levels. This will be painful for years in a number of ways, but we'll be better off in the long run.

[PeaceFrog]

My bad, its the Community reinvestment act that f-ed things up and started the ball rolling.

The community reinvestment act prevented banks from a practice known as "redlining," which is discriminating against borrowers based on the neighborhood they live in.

It did not require banks to give loans to people who could not afford it.

[In A Silent Way]

If you do the math, she CAN afford the house, she just can't afford anything else.
At least not with the income she reported.

[staggerlee024]

It still blows my mind that Acorn has received so much negative attention. I have been aware of, and worked with in various capacities, this organization for years. This organization is not, the socialist end of the take over the government, mystique that the right wing media has painted it out to be. At best, some of the individuals that work or have worked for Acorn are like myself. That is to say, a small percentage of them believe that Democratic Socialism is the direction that this country needs to be heading in.

This state is true for nearly every single progressive organization that I have come across. Even the more traditionally conservative labor movement has their share of pinkos. However, the majority of people that work for Acorn are poor or working class "blue dog" Democrats. Albeit, these are not people that would work with an organization like Acorn under ordinary circumstances. Rather, life has necessitated that, for one reason or another, they get involved.

The specific charges of voter fraud during the presidential election were beyond ridiculous. Anyone that has ever been part of any sort of voter registration drive, petition or signature gathering knows that this can be a problem. It is a problem of individuals. Acorn, just like any other institution has had problems with volunteers and/or employees cheating.

However, from what I have experienced in my own life and what I have read about the various allegations, Acorn has done a commendable job of tackling this issue head on.

In regards to the story posted here, I believe that this is a faulty strategy. The news article does not make it clear whether this incident was staged by various members of Acorn or was planned by the organization itself. It is important to remember that "Acorn members" can either mean people that work for the organization and make decisions or they can be community members that have gotten involved.

Finally, the right wing media has vastly exaggerated how much money an organization like Acorn could potential receive under the stimulus bill.

[Elphaba]

in response to deadheadskier:

so in other words, it doesn't matter to you. just like it doesn't matter to a lot of other people. it does depend on the individual situation, there are too many situations to pass judgment based solely on your experience alone.

[deadheadskier]

so in other words, it doesn't matter to you. just like it doesn't matter to a lot of other people. it does depend on the individual situation, there are too many situations to pass judgment based solely on your experience alone.

agreed, it depends on the situation. If this woman took on a loan where it's affordability was purely based on an unrealistic rise in her homes value, I don't have an issue with her losing it. She gambled and lost. Should someone who buys a stock that tanks go looking to the government for their money back? It's really not all that different outside of there being a lot more emotion involved because it's a home. There are in inherent risks to all forms of investment and people need to make sure they are aware of them before they get in too deep.

All I'm really saying is that I think artificially propping up home values will prove to be unsustainable in the long run. Artificial prices got us into this mess in the first place, the idea of using the same logic to get us out of it makes no sense to me. Also by keeping the housing prices high artificially, you're potentially shutting out good responsible borrowers, which is what is better for the banks (interest) and community (taxes) in the long run.

[wowzers]

It comes down to personal responsibility. You know how much you make. You know how much the mortgage is. Third grade math tells you what is left over.

[PeaceFrog]

It comes down to personal responsibility. You know how much you make. You know how much the mortgage is. Third grade math tells you what is left over.

Maybe she didn't graduate from third grade.

Isn't the banker required to pass third grade?

What are they doing giving money to someone who can't pass third grade math?

[Elphaba]

and when fancy bank people in expensive suits are telling you that you can afford more, falsely reporting your income on the loan application, not verifying loan application information, including income that does not exist or giving you different repayment options based on interest only payments? these are the kind of things that need oversight and why a lot of these people became upside down in their mortgages. because of deceptive lending practices and corporate greed.

Her mortgage? $1995 a month. Her income? $2200." what reputable bank gives a mortgage to someone with these income vs. debt ratios, not including what else she has to pay out? whose fault is that really? did her income change or did the bank fuck up?

[mule64]

ther are bad bankers out there, but who is not smart enough to understand that the payment is almost what she earns and she can not afford it?

There has to be personal responsibility here also, the banks can not be fully blamed, personal responsibility.

[wowzers]

If the banker lied on applications, didn't verify income, etc then they should be held accountable, but that doesn't absolve her of the fact she accepted a loan she had no way of paying for.

[deadheadskier]

Maybe she didn't graduate from third grade.

Isn't the banker required to pass third grade?

What are they doing giving money to someone who can't pass third grade math?

If the lady was honest about her income, yet the bank knowingly put her in a loan that she would eventually not be able to afford when it reset; the lady should get a new loan. That is predatory lending to me.

If the lady was dishonest about her income to secure this loan, then she deserves to be foreclosed on.

That's the way I see it in terms of individual cases may vary.

[Elphaba]

it still does not address whether or not there was a change in income. there's no way this person was paying that mortgage for 8 years with a $205 difference between income and mortgage payment unless there was another source of income (a significant other, different job) or ...maybe the mortgage payment changed due to something in the mortgage contract. there is more to this story.

[deadheadskier]

and when fancy bank people in expensive suits are telling you that you can afford more, falsely reporting your income on the loan application, not verifying loan application information, including income that does not exist or giving you different repayment options based on interest only payments? these are the kind of things that need oversight and why a lot of these people became upside down in their mortgages. because of deceptive lending practices and corporate greed.


no argument here.

I was offered a job in 2004 with a mortgage broker in Florida where I could have been making six figures doing exactly what you're saying. I morally couldn't take the job even though at the time it represented a chance to make more than double the money I had ever made in my life. This does need to change. Laws should be re-written such that such actions are considered a criminal offense and bankers caught doing this should face possible jail time.



Her mortgage? $1995 a month. Her income? $2200." what reputable bank gives a mortgage to someone with these income vs. debt ratios, not including what else she has to pay out? whose fault is that really? did her income change or did the bank fuck up?

It's both their fault, but I feel that the bank in this situation should be on the hook for paying the property taxes on her house such that the community doesn't suffer. They both should know better, but the banks even more so than the borrower.

[reveur]

The community reinvestment act prevented banks from a practice known as "redlining," which is discriminating against borrowers based on the neighborhood they live in.

It did not require banks to give loans to people who could not afford it.

now we're just getting screwed by "reverse redlining" which is IMO even worse!

[deadheadskier]

it still does not address whether or not there was a change in income. there's no way this person was paying that mortgage for 8 years with a $205 difference between income and mortgage payment unless there was another source of income (a significant other, different job) or ...maybe the mortgage payment changed due to something in the mortgage contract. there is more to this story.

I agree, most likely she was in an interest only ARM that reset. If predatory lending put her in that loan, she deserves a better deal. If the loan was originally that amount and she switched jobs to a lower income position, than that's life.

[wowzers]

I agree, most likely she was in an interest only ARM that reset. If predatory lending put her in that loan, she deserves a better deal. If the loan was originally that amount and she switched jobs to a lower income position, than that's life.


Even if she did get "preyed" upon. She chose to take to the loan. Life has consequences. Do you feel bad for the geniuses that send money to nigerians to claim a long lost inheritance?

[PeaceFrog]

Even if she did get "preyed" upon. She chose to take to the loan. Life has consequences. Do you feel bad for the geniuses that send money to nigerians to claim a long lost inheritance?

Actually, that's not right either and if something could be done about it then it should be. The problem is there isn't much that can be done in the situation you describe. We can do something about American bankers who are scammers.

Trusting a strange Nigerian off the internet is much different than trusting an American Lender for a home mortgage, in my opinion. I'm sorry you have trouble making that distinction. Neither is "right."

People get mugged on the street. That sucks too. We do our best to stop that from happening. Just because we can't stop everyone (Nigerian scammers - muggers on the street that get away with it) doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop the ones we can (American scammers - muggers on the street we can catch) with surveillance and prosecution... etc.

In summary, comparing a domestic problem to a foreign problem is like comparing apples to ears.

[Elphaba]

no argument here.

I was offered a job in 2004 with a mortgage broker in Florida where I could have been making six figures doing exactly what you're saying. I morally couldn't take the job even though at the time it represented a chance to make more than double the money I had ever made in my life. This does need to change. Laws should be re-written such that such actions are considered a criminal offense and bankers caught doing this should face possible jail time.


that was the basis of the program i watched that has me riled up about this - and that is how my neighbors were taken advantage of, not this article - i don't think they should have broke into the house, that was just nutty.

just the whole housing crisis. i just hope that the beneficiaries of this housing bailout are properly screened and vetted as stated they would be to prevent more money going down the tubes/into the wrong hands. perhaps the gov't should put a caveat in the bill that if/when the equity turns around on the property and the property is sold, the money is returned to the gov't in whole or in part dpending on how many years the homeowner stayed living there...prorated or whatever - if it isn't already.

[In A Silent Way]

She's not such an innocent victim.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/02/20/acorn-breaks-enters-home-for-civil-disobedience-protest-somethings-rotten-in-baltimore/comment-page-1/#comment-165186
Donna Hanks initially purchased her home (315 South Ellwood, Baltimore, MD 21224) on 7/06/2001 for $87,000. At some date between 2001 and 2006 she re-financed the original mortgage for the amount of $270,000 with a mortgage payment of $1,662.00. The FIRST foreclosure on this home was filed 5/31/2006. Donna Hanks filed for bankruptcy 6/16/06 during which a payment plan was approved for the $10,500 she was behind in her payments. This action stopped the original foreclosure. When she did not meet the terms of the bankruptcy re-payment, a second foreclosure action was started in January 2008. At the time she had not made her mortgage payments since September 2007. It should be noted that her salary per the bankruptcy paperwork was $1625 per month and she was working a 2nd and 3rd job (supposedly giving her an additional $1,275 in monthly income - the employers were not listed). Over extended? Also, during 2007 she was renting our her basement illegally (she was taken to court) and receiving rent while she was not making her mortgage payments. The mortgage company “raised” her payment $300 a month - right? Well, not exactly it was $340. The amount that she had agreed to pay back in arrears. Not exactly truthful, but what I would expect from a person with her criminal record (theft and assault 2nd degree and possession of a dangerous weapon with intent to injure). Oh and there is the small matter of breaking and entering. The house at 315 South Ellwood had already been sold at auction on 6/26/08 for $192,000. It just took them until September 2008 to get her out. Nothing like public information - it seems Acorn could have found this same information before they helped this “poor” victimized woman…………………

[Elphaba]

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=162992,00.html

Real Estate/Mortgage Fraud: Facts, Figures and Closed Cases

IRS Criminal Investigation (CI)
February 2009

Federal investigators have identified an increase in frauds and schemes in the real estate business. These schemes victimize individuals and businesses, including low-income families lured into home loans they cannot afford, legitimate lenders saddled with over-inflated mortgages and honest real estate investors fleeced out of their investment dollars.

Special agents with IRS Criminal Investigation are uniquely equipped to investigate these types of mortgage fraud and illegal real estate crimes because they are skilled financial investigators whose mission is to 'follow the money.'

Some of the common real estate fraud schemes include:

Property Flipping — A buyer pays a low price for property, and then resells it quickly for a much higher price. While this may be legal, when it involves false statements to the lender, it is not.
Two Sets of Settlement Statements — One settlement statement is prepared and provided to the seller accurately reflecting the true selling price of the property. A second fraudulent statement is given to the lender showing a highly inflated purported selling price. The lender provides a loan in excess of the property value, and after the loans are settled, the proceeds are divided among the conspirators.
Fraudulent Qualifications — Real estate agents assist buyers who would not otherwise qualify by fabricating their employment history or credit record.
The income earned from these types of real estate fraud schemes is often laundered to hide the money from the government. Money laundering is simply a process of trying to make illegally earned income appear to be legitimately earned. IRS Criminal Investigation follows the money and collects evidence to prove applicable tax and/or money laundering violations. Once they have obtained the evidence, IRS agents forward their investigation to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

If a criminal investigation is not warranted, the IRS can also take civil action. Each year the IRS audits thousands of tax returns involving individuals and entities associated with the real-estate business.



there is a lot more there....

[wowzers]

Well it looks like they through their asses in jail for criminal trespass.