Today leading mortgage lenders JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America met with Washington State attorneys about the mortgage foreclosure crisis and seem unwilling to give anyone a break.
While the banks had no trouble taking tax dollars to bail themselves out in 2008, it seems the trickle down policy doesn't find its way back to the taxpayers now in crisis themselves.
For the first time since the Attorney General launched an investigation into questionable foreclosure methods, the biggest mortgage lenders came face-to-face with the attorneys.
The idea was to discuss a possible resolution for troubled homeowners as ideas where thrown around between Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and the attorneys general.
The attorneys general wanted the banks to agree to principal reductions on home loans. Forbes quotes the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, as saying, "Prinicipal [sic] writedown for people who couldn’t pay their mortgages? Yeah, that’s off the table."
Homeowners currently facing foreclosure because of soaring taxes wish they had the opportunity to squash the billions of dollars used to bail out banks. Obviously the consideration is not reciprocal as banks forget where the money came from.
Stocks rose this morning after ADP reported an increase of jobs in the private sector. However, these jobs might not be enough to cover basic expenses.
While the banks get on their feet and the stock market continues to forge forward, the everyday people are being trampled.
Foreclosure and unemployment are an ongoing crisis for a growing number of people. Despite these facts, the banks just don't care though they helped to cause the problem.
This false state of prosperity is bound to catch up with everyone in the long run.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 1
In my area of Florida if you are a homeowner in foreclosure you can make your bank sit down with you with a mediator and the bank has to pay for it, whether anything is worked out or not. The courts were so overwhelmed with so many foreclosure, they decided to make the banks do this. So if the banks were working with people, would the court have done this???
It makes no sense to me at all. I thought it was because they forgot to retrain the people who were used to taking houses with equity in them away from people. When you take a home that is upside down away from someone, don't they realize they might be saying, "Way to go, now I can get out of here and rent a better place for half I was paying here, and when things break, the landlord has to fix it, yea!
No one really wants to lose their home, I well know that, but it amazes me how the banks act like the people just don't want to pay up, not that they can't...like they lost their job.
In Florida they were trying to get a "Consumer protection" law through, that enabled the banks to skip the court process and just put the people out on the street via the sheriff. I think they made a mistake in the title, it was a "Bank protection" law.. consumers had nothing to do with it. As far as I know it didn't go through...