HOW LONG DO WE JUST SIT AND BOIL?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

“A question that comes to mind is how much we as a society are willing to sacrifice ourselves in order to punish these borrowers?   Because the cost is rising and is already too much.”

I applaud 60 Minutes for going back to back on the foreclosure crisis and hammering it from two different ends.  First, they focused on why the banks aren’t being prosecuted for their crimes and second they asked why the banks are walking away from homes they foreclosed on.  And, I am sickened by that second story that was on 60 Minutes last Sunday night.  It is heartbreaking to watch the homes that the banks first wrongfully foreclosed on, then abandoned, and are now being bulldozed to the ground.

The point being that 80% of these people have asked for some kind of help so they could hang onto the house.  These people would have clearly continued to pay had they been adjusted for real market value–maybe 5% or 10% in ordinary times would have been written down.  This is even provided for in the bankruptcy code for business deals, but, “Oh no”, the banks say, “We can’t do that with a house”.  How quickly they forget the overinflated appraisals that got us here in the first place.  If the bank didn’t want that loan to totally fail they would have worked with the homeowner.  But the banks do want the loans to totally fail because they want to make sure they can squeeze out every last ounce of fees they can get.   So now you have banks and tax collectors bulldozing the very same homes the Banks were in a rush to foreclose on.  What a waste.

Hey!  Banks!  If you’re so set on bulldozing and you refuse to work with the legitimate homeowner, what about seeing the home as a resource?  Haven’t you got any homeless in your city?  Haven’t you got any people living in their cars?  What about displaced homeowners?  Why not let them take over the utilities, taxes and maintenance of the home.  Wouldn’t that make more sense?  Last I checked it costs our society more money to have people on the street than it would to let them take care of a home in exchange for living there.

Do you remember the story of the frog in a pot of hot water?  As a recap if you place the frog in a pot of hot water he’ll jump out right away.  If however you put the frog in a pot of cool water and slowly increase the temperature, the moment he realizes that he’s cooking and will die, it’s too late to jump so he dies.

So I wonder if back in 2007, maybe 2005 or even as late as 2008, if someone would have published a “Secret Plan of the Banks”, stating that 20,000 homes in Cleveland would be purposely foreclosed on and then bull-dozed, with an additional over 6 million families across the country forced out of their homes with fraudulent paperwork by 2011 and 6 million more to come after that, what would have happened? You see, faced with the tsunami of millions of people forced out of their homes all at once, we react differently than when it happens in pieces every week.

If in 2007, the American public had been informed that THIS is what we would like in 2011, I believe there would have been a reaction, an outcry, an outrage and lots of preventative measures put into place.  But it happened gradually and the bar keeps getting lifted on where the outrage should be.  Like the frog in the water, the banks made sure we built up a tolerance to the rising temperature.

This is absolutely crazy-making, nuts, lunacy that they refuse to work with the homeowners, foreclose, kick families to the street and then bulldoze.  Is there anything more destructive than taking perfectly good homes and destroying them?   It’s lose-lose-lose.  Think about it.  The investor whose money went into the loan.  Gone.  The homeowner.  Gone.  The city is screwed because there’s no more tax revenue.  The only ones who profited from every angle, and are now rewarding themselves with record bonuses again this year, are the banks.

It’s infuriating to think these are people who would have stayed in the home, paid the insurance, paid the taxes, kept the utilities going, and the county would have made money, the investor would have made money, everyone would have profited except the intermediaries who are pretending to be lenders.  Yes, that’s right.  The odds that the entity stated on your mortgage as your “Lender” is not.  They are the intermediary and never put a dime into the mortgage but they will foreclose on you.  That’s why they have the name “Pretender Lender”.

Under HAMP banks don’t have to give loan modifications but they must consider the loan modification.  The fact that the homes are being bulldozed is clear proof the banks have abandoned them WITHOUT CONSIDERATION of the modification. Several Judges have picked up on this and more are looking at the evidence. The clear facts point to the policy of foreclosure for the Banks and servicers, rather than mitigation or recovery of losses for the investor. The Banks did not want to work with the homeowner or anyone else.  They have only ever desired a total loss. The more total the loss, the more money they made on fees, insurance, credit default swaps and other credit enhancements.

The rule of thumb has ALWAYS been that in all circumstances, a reasonable “work out” is better than a foreclosure.  This has always been the model in banking and lending.  But here the banks went exactly opposite of that.  The first reason is so that the servicers could make more money, but the real reason is that with a total loss no one asks for an accounting.  When they originally took money from the investor they did not invest it all into mortgages. This fact is not yet accepted.  But it happened. Out of the investor money that was advanced for the purchase of “mortgage bonds” approximately 30% never made it into mortgages. It went into the investors’ pockets as trading profits.  Really?!  How did that happen?

The Banks have successfully created a curtain between the real money trail and the documentary trail.  It is a curtain above which we cannot see.  The only part that we can see is the part where homeowners went to closings for loan products that were so obscure that Alan Greenspan admitted he didn’t understand the whole package.  What we know is that out of each dollar they took from the original investor, only 65¢ went to the system.  The rest went to various people as fees and trading profits.  What they did was steal the money by selling us our own assets as a profit.  We used our own money to buy the asset.  While this is classic Wall Street maneuvering, it’s just never been done before on this scale.

So where did the other .35¢ on every investment dollar go?  It went offshore to a distribution point in Bermuda.  Here’s an interesting tidbit.  Did you know that Bermuda has more title insurance companies based there than anywhere else in the world?  But let’s start from the premise that there is no reason for money to go offshore if someone is making a loan on US property and they are a US lender.  There’s no conceivable explanation for that or even a tax evasion scheme that would explain where the money would come from, if they were simply making loans.  So the explanation for money going offshore is that the money is stolen and was effectively laundered through Bermuda like some WalMArt distribution center, then sent to Luxemborg and Mexico and other foreign locales.  Here’s another tidbit, the government of Bermuda asserts jurisdiction over the transaction for tax purposes but then in the same document waives any tax claim on the money.  But I digress.  We’ll continue that subject another day.

The banks WANT A TOTAL LOSS.  If the homeowner pays off on the loan the banks are screwed because the borrower will only pay the amount of the mortgage which is LESS THAN THE AMOUNT THE INVESTOR PAID FOR THE MORTGAGE BONDS. Let’s say the investor gave a $1 million for FUNDING mortgages. If conventional loans had been the goal, then the money from the investor would have funded approximately $1 million in mortgage loans, at perhaps 4%-7% interest.   Instead the Banks searched for people to whom they would give bad loans with a much higher interest rate. A much higher interest rate means that less funding of investor money is required. Think about it. If the investor was expecting a return of 5% on $1 million then he was expecting interest income totaling $50,000 per year. So Wall Street Banks took $500,000 of the money and loaned to borrowers on crazy deals at a rate of 10%, which still leaves $50,000 in income. Then Wall Street sells the loans to the investor for $1 million at a “profit” of $500,000. but the homeowner/borrower only asked for and only got 650k.  The banks HAD to make sure the loan failed to hide the fact that they stole from the investors.  So if the home is bulldozed so much the better.  In a “complete” “loss” no one will ask any questions.

There is a suspicion that the decision to walk away from homes they foreclosed on was a deliberate action in order to wipe out the lower tranches of the pools so that the credit default swaps would pay off 100 cents on the dollar rather than 80 cents or 50 cents.  But they’re still not giving it to the investor.  Instead they transfer the investor’s wealth and everyone else’s wealth to themselves.  It’s very disturbing.  Or, as some have said, if this really is just one giant chess game, what’s the next move?  Is this some sort of ethnic cleansing where they get rid of the homeless and poorest of the poor first and work their way up the food chain?  Or will complete devastation then bring back the bank’s offshore money to restimulate growth, rebuild all those houses, refill those store shelves with goods and put us all back to work again?

Yet some still say it’s the homeowner who refinanced their home to buy a boat and an RV who is the cause of the biggest financial crime in the history of the world.  A question that comes to mind is how much we as a society are willing to sacrifice ourselves in order to punish these borrowers?   Because the cost is rising and is already too much.  When will it become too expensive to punish the homeowner?  If we really are as selfish as some would have us believe, we also need to ask ourselves how much it will cost us to see our neighbor go down.  Are you personally willing to go into poverty just so the borrowers don’t get a break.  Until now, people thought, “Oh, foreclosure, no big deal.” but the the value of your own home has dropped by half.  Wake up!  It’s not your neighbors’ fault.  We’re all in this together.  There are solutions but it’s a political issue to force the pretender lender banks to tell the truth, all of the truth, and to give homeowners a break.

Nobody cares if when the economy is rocking and rolling and everybody’s working and making a living that huge corporations such as the oil companies, get massive subsidies.  So isn’t the idea here, to get our economy rocking and rolling and everybody working again?  If that means forcing the banks to tell the truth so homeowners have a place to live and can find a job, doesn’t that benefit all of us?

How do you define survival?  Is it just you and your family?  Is it all of us?  Is it you and me but not the guy two blocks down?  I think when we figure out what survival means to us we will open the door to an incredible opportunity to receive the gifts that unity will bestow upon us.   It’s in our namesake.  It’s our destiny.  Are we not the UNITED states?  You know why the Occupy Movement has overwhelming and growing support?  It’s because in our heart of hearts we know everything they stand for to be true.  And overwhelmingly it’s what our souls crave.  It’s truly a spiritual solution to this economic problem.

About these ads

37 Responses

  1. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  2. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  3. [...] mortgages whose current ownership could be traced. Foreclosure defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  4. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  5. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  6. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  7. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  8. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  9. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  10. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  11. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  12. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  13. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  14. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  15. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.   Banks [...]

  16. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  17. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  18. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case. Banks and [...]

  19. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  20. [...] defense attorney Neil Garfield says the investors are unlikely to recover on abandoned and foreclosed properties in any case.  Banks [...]

  21. It seems the problem is complete and utter apathy on the part of any person or agency required to uphold the law, do their job and prosecute the criminals behind the total destruction of the U.S.

    Graft, greed, dishonesty and corruption are the prevalent forces at work in our government. Every one who can be bought, has been and they made sure they bought the right people–those in the regulatory agencies–so they could pull this off.

    Yeah, we’re all pretty sick of the oligarchs, the 1% ers getting more and more while the world’s inhabitants get less and less, but we don’t seem to have a plan to reverse it, We are not united in our opinions, and some of us would rather play video games, or watch football than worry about the cataclismic events unfolding.

    We write letters, post in forums, call our congressmen and complain bitterly, but is that getting us anywhere? I think we should do what the Bilderberg members do; form a think tank, split up into action groups and start undermining their power structure using their mind control and psycho babble bullshit. Let’s get some independent papers going and start writing articles about them, exposing their century long slide into depravity, their self-indulgent and exaggerated sense of self importance, their inability to connect with humanity.

    We need to ensure that the federal reserve gets booted once and for all. When people pool their resources, they don’t need banks at all! We don’t need warmongers like Hillary Clinton meddling in foreign policy while pretending to give a crap about struggling homeowners.

    When the Monetary Reform Act is sponsored and up for a vote, we need to swarm our congressmen and tell them, “Pass it, or get out.”

  22. IS THE FBI FINALLY INVESTIGATING FANNIE AND FREDDIE??

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76285462/FBI-Reportedly-Investigating-Fannie-Mae

  23. DON’T BOIL!!! STIR THE POT!!!

    If there is one thing I learned throughout all this, it’s how to be a pain in the ass. Have you made yourself a pain in the ass? To the servicer? To the courts? To the law enforcement community? To the regulatory authorities? I would suggest you get on it.

    here’s a list of the people I’ve harassed (some continuously) by sending evidence of criminal behavior (racketeering, wire fraud, fraudulent conveyance, fraud upon the court, tax fraud, etc.:
    Wisconsin AG-useless
    Wisconsin DFI-useless
    WI Judicial Commission-no issues exist
    WI Bar-Attorney Review-no issues exist
    Herb Cole, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan-don’t care
    US Attorney-no answers, smart questions
    FBI-no answers, no questions
    SIGTARP-call your district attorney
    District Attorney-no resources, call the Sheriff
    County Sheriff-not interested, wouldn’t touch it
    Comptroller of the Currency (3rd complaint)-we’re still, uh, no, uh,
    USDOJ Housing-closed her e-mail
    USDOJ Civil Rights
    USDOJ Anti-trust division, San Francisco
    Secretary of State Maryland, Notary Division
    Maryland Attorney General-we don’t care
    Governor of Maryland
    United States Trustee’s Office
    AG Kentucky-thanks for the docs (sent from my I-Phone)
    Indiana AG-thanks for the docs (they’re passing out the money now)
    AG Massachussets-Thanks, we’re on it!
    Tom Miller-thanks for your stuff, I’m investigating (not really)
    Fox News (what do you expect, they’re owned by the WSJ)
    …and every stinkin’ reporter who wrote a foreclosure story in the last 2 years. WSJ guy actually sent me an e-mail a couple years ago. I should call him.

    I sent a group e-mail to a bunch of attorneys in the f/c defense biz about “stirring the pot” with the local pol’s, we get a measure from a Wisconsin Representative. How about that!

    I just recently wrote CBS. Told them they’re on a roll with these foreclosure stories and I should be their next interviewee.

    I’d love to see the look on those Wells Fargo Office of the President Executive Complaints people when that one runs………….

    Start being an asshole! It works for me!

  24. AG KAMALA HARRIS FILED PETITION TO ENFORCE INVESTIGATIVE INTERROGATORIES IN CALIFORNIA AGAINST FREDDIE MAC AND FANNIE MAE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76266421/CALIFORNIA-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-PETITION-TO-ENFORCE-INVESTIGATIVE-INTERROGATORIES-FANNIE-MAE-FREDDIE-MAC

  25. @Neidermeyer,

    I predicted it a couple of years ago. When I decided to file against my servicer, it is because I thought rents would increase as a result of the millions of people thrown out of their houses. It was an economic decision I had to make: stop paying the servicer and hire an attorney (for the price of a rental) or walk away sice my credit was shot anyway.

    I thought long and hard and came to the conclusion that walking away wasn’t an option and would leave me much worse off in the long run than fighting. At least, fighting gave ma a leg up in a way and the worse that could happen is if I lost (which I have never considered possible).

  26. @SWARMtheBANKS ,

    Hillary is no different than CW , WF or any of the rest ,, hell … she ran her own real estate scam at one time ,, remember WhiteWater? If you think she won’t be taking the banks side when she stole millions in the same manner herself you are mistaken.

    I don’t think it will really matter who is elected next year.. I believe we’re going to collapse before then.

    Here’s a nice article in “Managing REO” ,, all about rental prices soaring while the foreclosure machine grinds on..

    http://www.mortgageservicingnews.com/msn_features_reo/rental-prices-surge-1027978-1.html?ET=mortgageservicing:e2180:79791a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MSN_REO_122111&site=default_reo

  27. Homeowner skin in the game: Down payment, points, fees, escrow, title, taxes, insurance, maintenance and home improvements. For years or for decades over and over again many times the value of the home keeping banksters and related parties employed and profiting. That source of stimulus has gone away now probably for decades. How much it added to local business is underestimated too. For those paying on time and for those who paid for years until they couldn’t pay anymore for whatever reason or for those who wish to sell or move or pay off thier mortgage or downsize for any reason – their equity tanked like never before in history, tanked even lower than a few years run up and their close knit communities and relationships (mom and pop businesses) degraded through no fault of their own. Home equity was the only savings most had (by far and there are statistics for this) and this is often overlooked and belittled. Most people do not have stock portfolios or big portfolios of fixed income investments. Most thought the safest investment was paying down their mortgage for an asset that could be sold one day if times got tough. It has been the case for many decades. Now with a 50% or more drop in value, homes free and clear have been impacted more than those with 100% ltv. who had no skin in the game who walked or got booted years ago. Those who have stayed put have lost the most. Flippers and investors were the first out the door and they were back in the game years ago and profiting again.

  28. The republican politicians AND Barack Obama are one and the same. Ron Paul might make a difference, but I am pretty certain that Hillary Clinton WOULD make a difference.

    in 2008, Hillary Clinton gave knowledgeable answers and showed genuine concern for home owners and the foreclosure crisis back then, Barack Obama just gave lip service.

    Barack Obama my have violated the federal hobbs action, extortion under the color of right, when he allowed taxpayer funds to be used to lure homeowners into defaulting on their mortgages before they could become eligible just to APPLY for HAMP.

    Not even get HAMP, just for the “privilege” of applying for HAMP, homeowners had to ruin their credit rating, that is EXTORTION, and it was done under the color of right – “helping” people get lower home mortgage payments when that was not even a remote possibility for at least a million homeowners as a conservative estimate.

  29. Who says Satan does not exist? No human could design such a
    devilish system of destruction and population reduction.

  30. Got it wrong in AZ!

    ARIZONA SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH LENDERS ON KEY TRUSTEE SALE ISSUE

    Posted by mmadmin on December 19, 2011 , No comment

    IN VASQUEZ V. SAXON MORTGAGE, INC., ET. AL., the Supreme Court of Arizona recently held that Arizona’s trustee sale statute does NOT require the recording of an assignment of a deed of trust to reflect the interest of the foreclosing lender (as the current beneficiary under the Deed of Trust) before a trustee sale can be conducted. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona certified 2 questions for the Court’s consideration:

    1. IS THE RECORDING OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE UNDER A.R.S. § 33-808 WHEN THE ASSIGNEE HOLDS A PROIMSSSORY NOTE PAYABLE TO BEARER?

    AND

    2. MUST THE BENEFICIARY OF A DEED OF TRUST BEING FORECLOSED PURSUANT TO A.R.S. § 33-807 HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE SECURED OBLIGATION (that is being foreclosed)?

    On the 1st issue, the Court focused on Arizona’s trustee sale process and the statutes that govern how a trustee’s sale is conducted. Finding no authority in Arizona statutes for the idea that an assignment of a Deed of Trust must be recorded in the County Recorder’s office to provide evidence that the foreclosing beneficiary is the current holder of the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust being foreclosed, the Court refused to impose such a requirement as a condition to a trustee’s sale. The Court was mindful to articulate the reasons why an assignment of a Deed of Trust would be appropriate, but explained that such an assignment is discretionary and only impacts the rights of the parties to the assignment and potentially a third party that would buy an interest in the trust property without knowledge of the assignment. However, as between the owner and the lender, the Court found that an assignment is not necessary and cannot be used by an owner to stop a trustee from carrying out the authority granted to it in the Deed of Trust.

    The Court declined to address the 2nd issue, finding that the answer to this question would not help decide any issues in the underlying bankruptcy action since the foreclosing lender, Deutsche Bank, had been assigned the promissory note in question before the notice of trustee’s sale (related to the Vasquez foreclosure) was recorded. As a result, this issue remains open to debate, although it will likely be clarified by decisions of Arizona courts in the near future. Until then, some borrowers will choose to push this issue to the forefront of their disputes with their servicers/lenders.

    Unfortunately, in not addressing the 2nd issue presented, the Court left unanswered a very important question plaguing the non-judicial foreclosure process (i.e., trustee’s sales) and, in my opinion, a question that goes to the heart of the issues in many foreclosure disputes. The basic argument behind the 2nd issue is that when mortgages were sold in the securities markets, the note and collateral were separated and the collateral securing the note was never assigned to the parties that actually own the note. Since the collateral is being sold to satisfy obligations under the note, how can a party that can’t prove it owns the note, and thus the right to enforce the note, authorize a trustee to sell the property at a foreclosure auction? In many cases, it simply is not clear who actually owns the note that is causing the foreclosure. If the trustee takes direction from a beneficiary (or its agent) as to when to record a notice of trustee’s sale and when to conduct a foreclosure, this begs the question – does the party that is telling trustees to foreclose on Arizona properties actually own the notes that are the subject of the foreclosure (or work for someone that does)? If not, then one question looms large – who the heck is telling the trustees to foreclose?

    Losing a home is a pretty big deal. Doesn’t common sense tell us that if you are going to take someone’s home, someone’s property, you better be able to establish that you own the note (or work for someone that does) that is the underlying reason for the foreclosure? If not, can’t anyone allege they own the note or work for someone that does, never have to prove their position, pick their own trustee to do the trustee’s sale and provided the trustee follows the statutory process, sell a borrower’s house out from under them. And what is the justification for looking the other way on this issue – simply because the borrower is delinquent? Perhaps, but does a delinquency justify such sloppy and questionable business practices?

    Marc McCain, Esq.

    McCain & Bursh, PLC

  31. A-man you highlight a good point-
    the banks job is to be a parasite in a predatory financial environment.
    makes perfect sense , and the obamanation is right on time & target to start filling the fema camps with belligerent domestics & terrorists.
    as of 1/1/12 union workers will be without gov voice or power.
    think there is gonna be some steam up ahead- your new factory job at the day rate = bowl of rice & bus fare. we are the biggest 3rd world country in the world! with the largest military to boot!

  32. Hillary Clinton would have handled the home foreclosure problem because her financial base was the very people being hurt.

  33. When our lawsuit was filed in State Court we were required to post a bond. The defendants removed our case to Federal Court. The judge has denied the defendants Motion to Dismiss. I would like to know how can we get our bond refund. The State judge said he did not have jurisdiction over refunding our bond unless we have case law to support. Any advice is welcome.

  34. The mortgage interest rate charges are still ultimately irrelevant in terms of a profit or loss statement for wall street, the banks, and the federal government.

    Investors should not even be investing in homes that they took no risk in. Real investors actually build the home. All the Johnny come lately’s that call themselves investors for “backing” a home mortgage, they are not even needed. Screw em, they can stand in line and purchase a T-Bill, or, go out and find themselves a REAL JOB.

    A homeowner that is paying back what they owe on a home, even at 3% mortgage interest, is still a viable component of the economy, but once the government backed out of home loans and let “investors” take over after the year 1999, homeowners have been ripped off.

    The “pressure” to charge higher interest rates is based on nothing more than feeding the billionaires of the planet.

  35. Spot on it is a national crisis it knows no boundrys or is picky about who it affects.If we could all band together perhaps we could be a significant force to be reckoned with.As more people are foreclosed on some are joining our ranks at the very least maybe now they understand because they are becoming part of what is going on.Let us hope that perhaps next year will be a better year for eveyone.Unlikely as that seems there might be some bright spots.Live,Laugh,Love

  36. Oh and it is not only Obama’s fault. But I am looking forward not backwards.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  37. It is not the Banks It is the Obama Administration and the Governors and Attorney Generals fault. The could put an end to this madness.

    The Banksters are only doing their jobs. and when we as a society let them get away with it.

    NEVER AGAIN
    A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR A BANKSTER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,256 other followers

%d bloggers like this: