By Mortagee

February 24, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this

Does anyone know if Georgia is a recourse or no recourse state? that is, can a mortgage company foreclose on you, and then sue you for any auction block shortages?

By Roska

February 24, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

Great.

Now we’ve got the AJC paying their employees to blog about how deadbeats can stay in their houses until Obama bails them out.

What part of “make your payments” do people not get?

I love the “through no fault of your own like job loss” part. So should you be allowed to keep your car if you don’t make the payments? Should your kids be able to go to daycare if you don’t pay?

Perhaps the AJC should withold payment to Mr. Badie because their business is failing through no fault of their own.

By BW

February 24, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this

Hey Roska what part of losing your job don’t you get?

By Gandalf, the White!

February 24, 2009 2:04 PM | Link to this

Hey BW, the part about where I don’t give a rat’s behind if you lose your job. Make your payments or get the heck out! It’s not hard. Surely you have 6 months of savings for a rainy day, or you are a dumbassi tribe member? STFU!

By Gandalf, the White!

February 24, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this

BW just kinddin’!

By BW

February 24, 2009 2:31 PM | Link to this

People like Roska are part of that 22 percent that believed bush was doing a good job. In one why he did, he left Obama one he— of a record depression/recession.

By BobG

February 24, 2009 3:33 PM | Link to this

Yes, Rick, losing a job can be tough. But your job security is just part of the calculated risk that you take in signing a long-term financial agreement like a mortgage loan.

Asking to see the paperwork is nothing but a stall tactic. Maybe desperate times require desperate measures, but where’s the honor in avoiding a legitimate obligation?

By jim d

February 24, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this

Hey bob,

I generally tend to agree with you but fear not on this one.

A person has every right in the world to have documentation that someone claiming title to the largest investment they have made is in fact a legal claim.

You mention honor? Well where’s the honor in failing to provide legal documentation to the claim?

We must at all costs protect the rights of our citizens. If that delays the inevitable, so be it, let it be delayed.

By nana

February 24, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this

I feel very sorry for people who are losing their homes as they’ve lost their jobs. However when we got our home we made sure that the house we bought and the payment that went along with it could be made if either one of us lost our jobs, although it would be harder. We also make sure we have at least 6 months of an emergency fund in case that happened. I don’t condone these tactics for people to stay in their homes. They are pretty much doing nothing but avoiding the inevitable. I do believe that mortgage companies should try to rework the loan perhaps extending the payments out? But for someone to stay in their homes and not pay is unacceptable and we all pay for this in the long run.

By jim d

February 24, 2009 3:52 PM | Link to this

BTW Bob,

What has changed? You’ve always been big on propety owner rights. Why the change of heart?

By Roska

February 24, 2009 4:31 PM | Link to this

To BW: Actually I think Bush was a moron - but a lesser moron than Gore or Kerry. I didn’t like McCain either for that matter.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that when you sign the loan papers you should make your payments or leave the house if you can’t. We should not be encouraging people to use delay tactics to squat in a house they’re not paying for.

By the way - what do you want to be that the people using this technique have cell phones, truck payments, salon nails, and cable TV?

By jim d

February 24, 2009 4:36 PM | Link to this

I can just about assure you that bloggers that feel this lady should just walk away have never faced homelessness. Personally I hope they never do, although it might be poetic.

By Gandalf, the White!

February 24, 2009 4:37 PM | Link to this

BW I take back the just kiddin’ part, you are a dumbassi! STFU! You and Barry deserve each other, both suckin at the teat of socialism/communism! 4 legs good,2 legs bad! All animals are created equal, some animals are more equal than others! HAHA STFU BW you king of the dumbassi!

By Bubba

February 24, 2009 5:25 PM | Link to this

I think that somebody better be able to produce a piece of paper saying they have the right to kick me out before they do it. Until that’s produced, stay in the house.

6 months of savings does not equal a get-out-of-jail-free card. The 6 months savings is spent, the bills can’t be paid, so you’re a dumbass because you didn’t have 8 months worth of savings. Or 12 months. Or however many months, it doesn’t matter. If you can’t pay your mortgage, you’re obviously a dumbass because you couldn’t accurately predict how hard the $hit would hit the fan.

For that matter, why even get a mortgage? Pass a law that says you can’t move into a house until you can buy it outright. No mortgages allowed.

Did people take mortgages they couldn’t afford? Absolutely. Did banks get so creative with putting mortgages on their books that they made an agreement knowing that there was no way in hell a person could pay that mortgage off? Absolutely.

There’s plenty of blame to go all the way around. STFU doesn’t cut the grass of my neighbors’ vacant houses, diminishing the value of my own house. I know - from now on, any mortgage has to include a monthly landscape fee to cut the grass of the ghost town yards.

I bet that many who are losing their homes would much rather figure out a way to refinance than to just stiff a lender. Now that we see that no one knows who the lender is or how to go about refinancing, it’s no wonder that it’s easier to ax the loan and the homeowner. Besides, the finance CEOs don’t have time to do their job; they might lose their place in line for more bailout money. Had they done their job right in the first place, the issue of people having mortgages they can’t afford wouldn’t be a big concern, now, would it?

By Ryan

February 24, 2009 7:58 PM | Link to this

95% of Americans are making their mortgage payments and paying their bills. So now i guess it is our turn to take care of the 5% that can’t get their act together? So we bail these bums out (with my tax $ i’m sure) and then what have they learned? To be responsible? Nope. They learn that next time they can’t handle their responsibilities, someone will come along and bail them out. It teaches dependency. The same people that can’t pay their bills are the same ones in new cars, with the newest BlackBerries, and flat screen TV’s. Apparently some people will never understand priorities. God help us all.

By Ryan

February 24, 2009 8:00 PM | Link to this

95% of Americans are making their mortgage payments and paying their bills. So now i guess it is our turn to take care of the 5% that can’t get their act together? So we bail these bums out (with my tax $ i’m sure) and then what have they learned? To be responsible? Nope. They learn that next time they can’t handle their responsibilities, someone will come along and bail them out. It teaches dependency. The same people that can’t pay their bills are the same ones in new cars, with the newest BlackBerries, and flat screen TV’s. Apparently some people will never understand priorities. God help us all.

By LT5000

February 24, 2009 10:29 PM | Link to this

Brucie (BW) the dumbass never fails to prove he’s an idiot, just like Badie does on a weekly basis.

Give Brucie a civics lesson, Congress controls the purse strings not the President. And we all know who controlled Congress from 2006-2008.

Not to mention Bawney Frank’s cornhole buddy, Herb Moses, and Hussein Obama’s friend Franklin Raines were running Fannie Mae which started this whole crisis.

They resisted Bush’s call to bring more regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie.

Brucie has always been ignorant of the facts, but it’s most likely due to his extra chromosome.

LT5000

By BW

February 24, 2009 11:01 PM | Link to this

Roska, I can remember many years ago, my wife and I didn’t worry about a years payments, we worried about a down payment. We made out, at least back then both could find jobs, it’s not the same anymore. You and I could find ourselves in the same position if we were younger.

Roska, I do hope you’re not one of those Sunday Christians, you know sing the hymms one day a week and shaft everyone the next six.

Ryan, if it’s only 5% screwing up why is the did economy go down the tubes?

Bubba, we agree and I’ll leave it at that (course that was before the speech).

GREAT speech, tonight, see ya on marrow.

By BW

February 24, 2009 11:19 PM | Link to this

A civics lesson for LT ( some poor families idiot son) no matter what Bill passes Congress it doesn’t become law till the President signs it, isn’t that correct?

Gandalf, the White!, you have become a joke, not quite as bad as lt but close.

By Gandalf, the White!

February 25, 2009 8:09 AM | Link to this

BW suck on the teat of lenin/stalin! You are the joke!

By Bubba

February 25, 2009 8:40 AM | Link to this

Here’s the thing. I saw this coming 5 years ago. I’m not a politician, I don’t run a think tank. I’m a 9-5er. I refinanced my house in 2003, 15 yr fixed at 4.75%, and I left it alone.

My first hint was when my “lender” said that I was eligible to borrow up to 4 times what I was asking for. I spent the better part of 20 minutes trying to get him to move on, I wasn’t interested. Had to threaten to walk out the door if he didn’t STFU. Yes, people took the deal, and we’re seeing empty houses now. I think lenders saw an opportunity to foreclose houses when people they knew couldn’t pay the loans the lenders made. Common sense says that an empty house isn’t worth squat if you can’t sell it.

But the lenders didn’t care. They knew that they weren’t going to hold on to the mortgages. They bundled them and sold them, and they got sold again, and again, to where the bog holders had no idea what they were buying. Didn’t matter if people couldn’t pay the loans, the lenders wouldn’t hang on to the paper long enough to care.

Then there was the interest-only mortgage. Common sense tells me that a loan like that doesn’t give me equity, it just gives me a bigger apartment that I could rent. The lenders had to know that too. Lenders knew they were making loans that borrowers could never afford to pay, but they made the loans anyway.

So lenders stick out their hands to the government, saying, “We didn’t know, we couldn’t have known, now we’re going broke and we’re going to collapse the system. Pay us now!” And the borrower gets kicked out of his house onto the street, but shame on him. The lenders would not have loaned the money if they didn’t think I could pay it. Would they?

Look, I’m not saying it’s all the lenders’ fault. People borrowed money they had no business borrowing. But isn’t that up to the lender to make a prudent business decision and say, “I’m sorry, but based on the information you provided, we don’t see a way that you could ever afford to pay this loan?”

There’s plenty of blame to go around. It isn’t either/or.

By nana

February 25, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this

You’re absolutely right Bubba there’s plenty of blame to go around and let’s not forget the government’s involvement in all of this. We refinanced our house in 03 as well dropping the 30 year to a 20 year at a little over 5%, we had to search for a long time to find someone to refinance as we weren’t borrowing enough. So many lenders wanted us to get a lot more money than we wanted/needed. Some wouldn’t even talk to us unless we wanted $250K or more. We finally found one got the refinance and pay extra per month towards the principal. The housing mess is the root of most if not all of the current economic problems and getting that “fixed” should be the highest priority in this mess.

By Roska

February 25, 2009 1:03 PM | Link to this

BW - you might be shocked to know I’m not real big on organized religion. Not everybody who has a conservative financial philosophy is a Bible pounder. I find it distasteful how people on the right and left hide their agendas behind a wall of church nonsense. My feelings on private property ownership have nothing to do with religion.

I do know Christ said help your neighbor. I don’t think he ever said “move into a house and quit paying your mortgage and then feel entitled to live there” did he?

I see our culture heading into a socialistic welfare state where it doesn’t matter if you make stupid decisions - we’ll just bail you out.

God help us.

By LT5000

February 25, 2009 1:24 PM | Link to this

Brucie, the ever present moron, knows less about history than he does about heterosexuality.

And while were on the subject mayber Brucie could enlighten us all about Bill Clinton’s changes to the Community Revinvestment Act that forced banks to loan money to people who couldn’t pay it back.

http://www.businessweek.com/thethread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintonsdrive.html

Just for laughs.

Here’s your typical foreclosure victim. The Octomom.

http://michellemalkin.com/

These people used home refinance loans to fund lavish lifestyles and then stand around with one hand holding the latest iPhone and the other asking for us to bail them out.

While Obama’s buddy Franklin Raines cashes his Fannie Mae bonus checks.

LT5000

By Roska

February 25, 2009 1:57 PM | Link to this

LT - Why do you have to display your sexual hang ups publically?

I would submit that whether the socialists are gay or straight is immaterial because they’re screwing us no matter.

By BW

February 25, 2009 2:20 PM | Link to this

I don’t get it little tot, or lt, above you said the congress controls the purse strings and only they can introduce bills, now President William Jefferson Clinton is at fault when the congress was republican?

Which is it little tot, you can’t have it both ways and I could care less if you hold your breath.

By BW

February 25, 2009 2:36 PM | Link to this

Roska, sorry about the remark, but you are the only one I who has conservative financial philosophy that is not a Bible pounder

By nana

February 25, 2009 3:52 PM | Link to this

Hey BW I consider myself with a conservative financial philosophy and you have no idea whether I’m a Bible pounder or not. You might need to quit painting people with such broad brushes.

By nana

February 25, 2009 3:58 PM | Link to this

BTW Roska not sure how long you’ve been reading this blog but BW and LT go at it a lot. Believe me some of the things BW has said to LT aren’t any prettier than what LT has said to BW. It gets ugly.

By Bubba

February 25, 2009 4:34 PM | Link to this

“The Community Revinvestment Act forced banks to loan money to people who couldn’t pay it back.” You mean to tell me the government forced WaMu to loan someone $500K?!

Man, I want some of that Kool Aid. Oops. Too late. There isn’t any left.

By LT5000

February 25, 2009 8:50 PM | Link to this

Brucie has shown his ignorance of history is only seconded by his ignorance of government.

Read about Bille Clintons changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995. He did is with Robbie Reuben and the bank regulators and without Congress.

In July the President asked the four banking regulators to reform CRA, to reduce paperwork in process and reward performance, and to get that done by January 1, 1994. We’re delighted to report that that has been accomplished on schedule.

http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/12/1993-12-08-briefing-by-bentsen-and-rubin.text.html

This forced banks to loan to low income people who had no business getting a loan in the first place.

Kids, this is what happens to a man who spends more time on his knees and no time reading.

As always LT5000 with the facts.

By Michael H. Smith

February 25, 2009 9:15 PM | Link to this

The Cool-Aid is all gone?!

Something tells me this could be the start of something good. I mean, a world without the brew that made liberals famous, is no more… image, a world without The Cool Aid?

Careful BW, your ilk over at the UN has a new anti-blasphemy law that forbids defamatory speech against religions. That would including pounding on all the Bible pounders.

Thank God liberalism is considered a disease and not a religion. At least for now pounding on liberal socialist manifesto thumpers remains just another community service for the greater good.

Okay, back to serious humor: I got a good chuckle out of the article Mr. Badie. Beyond saying that, every foreclosure case differs on it merits. Some people now facing foreclosure really do deserve to lose everything but no U.S. Citizen deserves this present economy that both political parties in power share responsibility for creating.

By BW

February 25, 2009 11:07 PM | Link to this

Hey Little Tot (lt) get an education will you.

Community Reinvestment Act

Regulatory changes 2005 In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[15] In 2003, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that dramatic changes in the financial services landscape had weakened the CRA, and that in 2003 less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans were subject to intensive review under the CRA.[35]

In early 2005, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) implemented new rules that – among other changes – allowed thrifts with over $1 billion in assets to meet their CRA obligations without regard to services for, or investments in, their communities. In April 2005, a contingent of Democratic Congressmen issued a letter protesting these changes, saying they undercut the ability of the CRA to “meet the needs of low and moderate-income persons and communities”.[36] The changes were also opposed by community groups concerned that it would weaken the CRA.[37]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Controller of the Currency put a new set of regulations into effect in September 2005.[38] The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of “small” and “intermediate small” banks.[9] “Intermediate small banks” were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, which allows these banks to opt for examination as either a small bank or a large bank.[38] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[15]

I believe both bush and the republican congress were in power at the time.

By Bubba

February 26, 2009 8:53 AM | Link to this

The CRA may have required lending institutions to make loans to people they couldn’t afford.

There is a big difference, however, between making a $100K loan and a $500K loan. That is neither a liberal nor a conservative viewpoint.

That is simply bad business. Remove politics from the equation.

So we are essentially bailing out businesses for making absurdly bad loans. I don’t buy the argument that “congress made me do it.” Greed hails from neither a red nor a blue state.

By Chris Broe

February 26, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this

They haven’t properly explained the old S&L Crisis to me yet, so I’ve given up trying to understand this one.

By LT5000

February 26, 2009 4:28 PM | Link to this

Brucie never fails to prove his grasp of the issues is tenuous at best.

Salient sentence:

In April 2005, a contingent of Democratic Congressmen issued a letter protesting these changes, saying they undercut the ability of the CRA to “meet the needs of low and moderate-income persons and communities”.[36] The changes were also opposed by community groups concerned that it would weaken the CRA.

This means the banks were no longer being forced to make loans to people who couldn’t pay them back.

When Billy “BJ” Clinton changed the CRA in 1995, the number of subprime loans doubled in one year.

Not to mention, when Bush tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, it was the Democrats who filibustered it.

When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, “Why weren’t we doing more?” He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called “ill-advised.”

That would be the same Chris Dodd who received a sweetheart loan from Countrywide.

While Obama financial advisor Franklin Raines and Barney “hot bottom” Frank’s boyfriend giggled all the way to the bank with their bonus checks.

There’s the facts and then there’s Brucie’s version of things. Never the twain shall meet.

I would expect that after being proven wrong so many times he would eventually give up trying to spread his moronic propoganda. But in this instance, I have to admit I am wrong.

LT5000

By OMG

February 26, 2009 5:29 PM | Link to this

particularly if you’re about to lose your home through no fault of your own — job loss, for example.

You have got to be kidding me with this statement! Sure, in today’s economic environment, people are loosing their jobs through no fault of their own. What is their fault is when they fail to have enough in savings to pay their mortgage and other bills. So now it is socially acceptable to be a deadbeat, file bankruptcy and be forclosed on your home? Such stall tactics as “show me the docs” will only work for so long.

What is happening here, in my opinion, is perfect. From now on, we are going to have a public paper trail that proves who the deadbeats are in this country. So go ahead folks, do the socialist thing and become another statistic. Get yourselves bailed out by the government. However, don’t think for a second that you won’t pay the price later.

The downward spiral of our society continues at a rapid pace.

By LT5000

February 26, 2009 7:23 PM | Link to this

OMG,

You are assuming Badie is a real journalist and would objectively tell both sides of the story.

For instance, why someone like myself, who bought less house, has a savings account and lives well within my means, would have to bail out someone who took out extra mortgages to fund vacations, new cars and the latest technology fashion accessories.

Take the Octo mom in California, she whines that they are foreclosing on her house, but is out shopping for video games with one of her 14 kids.

I suggest everyone listen to Dave Ramsey. He speaks the truth. Some of us know it by experience and others have to learn the hard way.

LT5000

By Michael H. Smith

February 26, 2009 7:45 PM | Link to this

What is their fault is when they fail to have enough in savings to pay their mortgage and other bills?

We should all be so independently wealthy or just plain dumb lucky enough that come whatever fate will bring into our lives that we could meet all of our obligations. So far I’d say that I’m in the dumb luck crowd. Because, despite being remarkably independent, wealthy is something I’ve never been: At least not to the point of saying I am financially immune to any and all possible calamities seen as fore-thinkable.

I’m under no delusions and I sincerely hope no one else is so perplexed to think that somehow any one of us will not pay the price for these foreclosures, many, many years later. In fact, we will never finish paying for all of this gross mismanagement and enormous lack of financial oversight (some of it malicious) which has brought about the present economic collapse of the housing market alone. That obligation of debt and those bills will be passed onto our grandchildren’s future grandchildren to pay-off is my unpleasant best guess.

As usual the innocent will be forced to pay the price for the guilty.

By BW

February 26, 2009 8:16 PM | Link to this

Little Tot or lt, you copied your infomation off another blog., you have to be kidding, these are your so called facts, taking them from a blog, where the guy you copied most likey copyied them off another blog, man you crack me up.

Media blames Bush, but Frank and Dodd are to blame Submitted by Jim Backlin on January *, 2009

The left-wing “Old Media” — which is claiming the credit for electing the most liberal presidential candidate in history — is blaming the wrong guy, President George W. Bush, for the housing crisis. Instead, the real culprits, Democrat Congressman Barney Frank from Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Democrat Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut, Chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, should get the lions share of the blame for protecting the two giant government-sponsored housing corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

By BW

February 26, 2009 8:22 PM | Link to this

HMS, “As usual the innocent will be forced to pay the price for the guilty” hasn’t it always been that way, senseless wars, like Nam & Iraq, losing jobs overseas which means less workers…we’re in a sorry state right, but we will come back.

By Michael H. Smith

February 26, 2009 8:24 PM | Link to this

One other comment on Show me the documents, since we’ll not get to blog in response to the story contained in this link. Visa overstays as all with other forms of illegal alien residencies is criminal, so spare me the slobbering sob stories. These individuals knew they were breaking the law, many laws in fact, before they choose to further complicate their illegal=life circumstances by having children in this country and setting up households. Deport everyone of them, it is time that these thieves are forced by law to realize you can’t just take something that does not belong to you which is only granted as a privilege to any foreign national.

In case any U.S. citizen thinks their right and their opportunity to be in and a part of this country is not something of great value and is worth their individual weight in gold, then go live somewhere else like south of the border or in parts of Asia and tell me an illegal alien didn’t steal anything - The HORSE-CRAP they didn’t !

http://www.ajc.com/gwinnett/content/metro/stories/2009/02/25/hispanicimmigrationreform.html

By LT5000

February 26, 2009 8:27 PM | Link to this

Brucie is wrong again.

Unless he considers the Wall Street Journal a Blog. Being the halfwit that he is, I wouldn’t put it past him.

Everyone needs to understand that Brucie has never held a job in the private sector. He doesn’t understand economics because he has never had to. A

All he has ever had to do was stick out his hand and wait for taxpayer dollars to fill it.

For Brucie’s information. The Wall Street Journal is the premier newpaper about the financial industry. That’s the private sector. Where supply and demand rule the day.

I realize these words don’t mean much to you since you have suckled at the government teet for your livelihood.

Brucie is wrong again. Surprise surprise.

LT5000

By Michael H. Smith

February 26, 2009 9:02 PM | Link to this

SB 31 Senator Balfour?

I would love to hear you publically respond to the opinion piece written by Jay Bookman. If it is so that the people of Georgia are to assume risks in these nuclear power plants, then logic should follow that the people of Georgia should reap in shares of all the future dividends along with Georgia Power and its’ shareholders.

I am Pro-Nuclear Power by the way and I want more nuclear power plants built in conjugation with desalination plants to augment our our fresh water supply, since we have to give Alabama and Florida a great deal of our Georgia water. Even if does means getting some earmarks from the stimulus pork. We can not continue to grow economically without more power and water (the greener we grow the better). It really is just that simple.

Good blog topic to consider Mr. Badie.

By BW

February 27, 2009 12:35 AM | Link to this

Who care’s MHS, like you said maybe in another column, are you like Little Tot and stomps their feet when they don’t get their way?

As far as this column, as usual, you have lost your way. IT’S the illegals caused the downfall of the stable bush economy.

Little Tot give me the link to the Wall Stret Journal’s story than I will stop laughing.

By LT5000

February 27, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this

A link for Bruice to read after he gets done “working” the stalls at Inserection.

Get off your knees, wipe your chin and read Brucie. Actually knowing something about a topic prevents you from making an a* of yourself. A perisistent state of being in your case.

The facts always win and Brucie always loses.

In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie’s oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were “overblown” and that there was “no federal liability there whatsoever.”

Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” he said in response to another reform push. And then: “I regard them as great assets.” Great or not, we’ll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam’s assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html

LT5000

By woodie

February 27, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this

These mortgage companies are in trouble so putting kinks in the foreclosure process does little to help. People just need to pay their house notes or sell the house. If you can’t afford a house, I’m sorry. It’s not an easy thing if you don’t have the income but you have to accept facts and live within your means. I’d like to own a painting by Rembrandt but it ain’t gonna happen on my income.

By BW

February 27, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this

PAGE UNAVAILABLE

The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available.

You may use the “Back” button in your browser to return to the previous page, click Home to return to the WSJ.com home page, or access the Site Map.

Typical Little Tot, facts vanished since last night? Besides your entire arguement is meaningless, if there was that much of a problem bush and the republicans should have corrected it in 2005 when we still had an economy.

By LT5000

February 27, 2009 12:49 PM | Link to this

Brucie the omnipresent dumbass.

The link works fine on my computer.

I believe your problem is related to the fact that there is a penis loving retard between the chair and the mouse.

Call mommy, or a 4 year old, and have them help you with the computer.

LT5000

By LT5000

February 27, 2009 2:37 PM | Link to this

What are the chances that Blubbering Badie climbed off his fat a* and covered the “Atlanta Tea Party” held downtown today?

I’m guessing he was “too busy” looking for Human Trumpets, police taser murders that didn’t occur or searching the streets of Snellville for the scoop that will result in a 5th idiot blog.

Is that Obama buyer’s remorse setting in yet? Only $25,000 per taxpayer so far.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/tobyharnden/blog/2009/02/26/2557348_whatbarackobamasbudgetwillcosteachtaxpayer

LT5000

By Michael H. Smith

February 27, 2009 3:47 PM | Link to this

BW go blow your gas elsewhere. As much as YOU jump off topic on everything under the sun of YOUR interest … what a pathetic joke, as though you should exercise some kind of rules of authority over what goes on a blog which you don’t own.

Now go stomp off Brucie, cause YOU are not going to get YOUR wuddle way with me.