I have been wondering about the fairness of banks renegotiating mortgage loans with folks who do not pay their mortgage, but not with all of us who faithfully pay our mortgage obligations. This seems to be discrimination. do you know of anyone who is organizing a class action suit to force banks to treat everyone equally?

Respectfully,

Chuck Wall

GET READY FOLKS “THE FINAL HAMMER IS ABOUT TO COME DOWN ON ALL OF MANKIND!”

IT’S HIS TURN FOR TRUE JUSTICE WHICH IS LONG OVER DUE! HE IS BEGINNING TO HIT ALL WHERE IT HURTS THE MOST IN THE POCKET AND MORE… IT’S TOO BAD YOU ALL DIDNT PAY ATTENTION TO HIM AND LOOKED TO “HIM” LEAD & FEAR INSTEAD YOU CHOSEN MEN TO BE YOUR LEADERS! HOW SAD

THis is what main street needs to force obama to do. This is what this site should be doing. Be very careful that the strings are being pulled to
divert actions from what is needed to be done and pushed for.

My theory is that the exclusion of the primary residence from bankruptcy judge’s authority to order banks to re-negotiate loans should be eliminated. This would give every single homeowner - not speculators - the leverage to push the bank to re-structure their mortgages - not just those already in bankruptcy. Currently a single homeowner has no real power to push a reluctant lender to re-structure a loan. Not even in cases where the house is worth thousands less than the mortgage, or where the interest rate increase is pushing the monthly payment too high for the homeowner to keep up. If a homeowner could in negotiation with the bank say, negotiate with me now or do it under court order from a bankruptcy judge, then we would see reluctancy eliminated.

What impact this may have on the economy as a whole? I don’t know. I am not an economist. What impact this may have on banks? I don’t care. I am a borrower, not a lender. However, I believe that fewer homes would be foreclosed if the loan can be re-negotiated. Reduction in foreclosures could put the breaks on diving home values. Therefore, this could preserve the value people have in their homes, their main investment. This single change in a bankruptcy rule could very likely help banks as well, since property values could go up, and fewer homeowners will have the incentive of simply abandoning the property because it no longer holds value to continue paying the mortgage.

The only thing keeping this rule out is the greedy bankers. Bankruptcy court judges already have authority to order re-negotiation on loans involving a second house - but exclude the primary residence from that authority. Now, what sense does that make? And if the reasons for giving a judge such authority in the case of a second house are good ones - giving a borrower a chance to keep the property and a lender a chance to actually get paid - why wouldn’t that reasoning extend to the house where the lender lives. The house where the lender lives is much more worthy of such treatment - I say.

Socialism isn’t the answer, either. The Keynesian mix of socialism and crony capitalism is the root of our problem. Free market economics are the only way to fix this, but that’s not going to happen. Hyperinflation will be a reality soon.

That’s how every empire falls, and that’s what the Fed is doing as we speak. You can’t create wealth with a printing press. When the dollar falls, it will wipe out the middle class, and it’s not going to survive this.

It’s hard to justify paying taxes at a time like this.

On the other hand,the Federal Reserve Note is born as a debit, because the U.S. Treasury has to pay interest on the note from it’s inception. Which means you never stop paying. Sort of like paying the minimum on a credit card.

Speaking of credit cards and electronic payments. You’d better stop. It is a means of keeping the ‘real’ greenback from returning, because transactions are based on the Federal Researve Note!

Go back to paying for EVERYTHING with CA$H. and change the cash to UNITED STATES NOTES backed by silver. That’s the only way you will beat them at thier own game. ( I dare not mention who “they” are)