Uh, I think he’s definitely not correct. This is nonsense, but it may be nonsense with some purpose like gaining control of who they foreclose on before Congress tells them they can’t foreclose on anyone. Which would be even greater nonsense. We are so deep in la-la nonsense that we seem to have layer and layer of thought predicated on consistency with other nonsense.
Since people continue not to read the article or apparently even my post, I’ll bang my head into the wall once more: The program is only available to those who are current on their payments. Please elaborate on the mechanism by which this will encourage people not to pay. Meanwhile, if you’re looking for a solution to this mess, this seems like a pretty good one: Private parties working things out without government assistance. Certainly better than using taxpayer money to pay bank bonuses, right?
That’s simply not true. C announced that they will not initiate or complete foreclosures if someone has income and negotiates with C to get out of the mess. A person could be facing an auction tomorrow and get out of foreclosure with C’s current stance (well…this might be a little extreme).
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That’s simply not true. C announced that they > will not initiate or complete foreclosures if > someone has income and negotiates with C to get > out of the mess. A person could be facing an > auction tomorrow and get out of foreclosure with > C’s current stance (well…this might be a little > extreme). That’s inconsistent with both the WSJ article and C press release. Previously announced programs are working with people in foreclosure, although the modification options available to them are unclear.