Housing Market

50 Years of Foreclosure

From the department of "Holy Shit."

A new USA Today report suggests the consequences of the Bush "Ownership Society" and Wall Street's mortgage-backed security scam could be with us for many years. Perhaps even 50.

USA Today reports on new research that reveals the extent of the foreclosure crisis. The current pace of foreclosure sales in half the states is so slow that it will take more than eight years in most places to clear the backlog. According to LPS Applied Analytics, it could take states like New York and New Jersey at least 50 years at their current pace to clear the pipelines. Nationwide, there are 2.1 million homes in foreclosure or with seriously delinquent mortgages. The crippling backlog illustrates the continuing impact of the nation’s worst housing-market collapse, which “is likely to weigh on real estate prices in many markets for years to come.”

Hopefully the next congress will be more cooperative with the administration in their efforts to do, well, anything, about the massive foreclosure crisis still hanging over the head of the nation.

Democrats cannot afford to sit at home next election. The nation cannot afford for Democrats to sit at home next election. And we cannot afford to elect, or by lack of action allow someone to be elected, who thinks the answer to the foreclosure crisis is even more foreclosures.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Here’s a story you’ll find familiar…..I bought my house in late 2007 for $199,000 near Central Phoenix. When I became delinquent I still owed $194,000 on it . I put it up for Short Sale and less than a week later an investor showed up with CASH to buy it. Our asking price and the house’s current value? $70,000.

    All that money that company’s and the 1 Percenters are sitting on….in AZ they’re now investing it in prime real estate that the 99% have lost. Once again, they come out ahead…funny how that works isn’t it?

  • GrafZeppelin127

    I’m sure the next Congress will be more cooperative with the Romney administration than this one has been with the Obama administration (then again, how could it not be?), but the question is, what will they cooperate with President Romney in trying to do about the foreclosure crisis?

    Will they cooperate with the new president in having, say, the government buy some of the houses and immediately flip them to investors? Or in just sitting back and letting the banks foreclose, even changing the banking laws to ameliorate the requirements banks must meet before they can foreclose? (Although those laws exist mainly at the state level…)

    I’m racking my brain and I can’t think of anything else that President Romney might do about the mortgage crisis.

    • JMAshby

      Romney can’t even crack 30% approval in most states. He will not be the next president.

      • mrbrink

        I think it’s hilarious people think he’s got a chance.

      • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

        But Eventual Republican nominee Phil Indablank will have 100% approval in the all-important “companies that make and sell paperless voter machines” category.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Well, Romney’s plan so far would be to just let all the homes be foreclosed on, so I’m sure the GOP-controlled Congress would fully support that.

  • holyreality

    How does one connect Bush’s ownership society with this mess?

    Deflecting the Barney Frank and Freddie/Fannie “forced” banks to loan money to darkies claim, and pinning it directly to Bush the lesser is paramount to turning the Reagan narrative on it’s head.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I figure the breaking point will be when Bank of America tries to foreclose on a home that Wells Fargo just foreclosed on.

    • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

      I believe stuff like that has already happened.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Heck, there are communities where the banks are just bulldozing the houses they foreclose on.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      That’s so sad! What’s the point of doing that? I mean the banks could have let the people live there as renters. But noooooo, they’d rather just knock down the homes and create an eyesore for the community and let the land sit empty. I just don’t get it.

      • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

        The houses are decrepit from not being lived-in. The banks won’t ever make their money back for fixing them up to sell, so they figure demolishing the house makes the property worth something to developers. Some of these buildings have had the copper wiring stripped out for cash, others have mold or present a blight on neighborhoods. As any real estate agent will tell you, the most damaging thing that can happen to a house is to not be lived-in.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          Okay, that makes more sense. Did you know that you are supposed to purchase vacancy insurance if you aren’t living in the house and that it costs A LOT more than regular home owner’s insurance? I didn’t until after I’d moved out. I was worried about vandals because I didn’t want to see the property messed up (still have a soft spot in my heart for it even though it will never be mine again). But I contacted USAA (who handles all my insurance needs) and found out about the vacancy insurance requirements. Luckily I was able to have someone live in the home and take care of it after all so no other insurance was needed in the end.