No Federal Bailouts!

Many people are insisting that the government has to bail out AIG because, in the current situation, if the government didn’t step in, the result could be a worldwide depression. I understand that. I still think it’s the wrong thing to do.

If the government doesn’t bail them out, we’re going to have an economic crisis. But we’re going to have one anyway, whether they bail them out or not. The money with which the government bails out these failed institutions will be borrowed from other countries. Then the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for not only the bailouts, but the interest on the money to bail them out. And, when the bill comes due to the taxpayers, where will all that money be going?

The situation is going to get worse, whichever way we play the cards. But the way in which it gets worse will be different, depending on what we do now. And that’s important. Because our nation’s future depends on it. Do we want to let a failed system collapse, knowing it will have a seismic impact on the whole world economy? That would be bad. Or do we want to indenture our nation’s future to other powers whose interests are not necessarily aligned with ours? What other option is there?

This whole gigantic mess was caused by wide scale irresponsible borrowing. How is borrowing on an inconceivably more massive scale going to solve the problem? We are already the biggest debtor nation in the world.

Liberals are quick to blame it all on capitalism, but what actually got us here was government meddling. Further government meddling isn’t going to get us out. For years, the Fed kept interest rates low deliberately to fuel the housing bubble. It was a specific federal policy intended to make it easier for first time homebuyers to be able to buy homes they couldn’t otherwise afford. (Now strike the word “otherwise” from that sentence, and there’s the root of the problem.)

Federal policy was designed to encourage overspending. It was a government-subsidized Ponzi scheme, with the FHA, FannieMae, and FreddieMac at the top of the heap, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer. All accountability was shuffled away, through multiple layers of loan aggregation. When people started defaulting on loans that should never have been made, and institutions started defaulting on their debts to other institutions, speculation on defaults (aka “swaps”) to hedge the bad bets became rampant. (That’s what brought down AIG.)

The entire economy, from the top down, is built on debt. At the bottom of the pyramid are millions of individuals borrowing from banks, who borrow from government sponsored agencies, while the government borrows from foreign countries, granting them financial power to wield over us in the future. Even as individuals are going bankrupt from bad debt, the nation is sinking ever deeper into deficit spending. The problem is systemic. The madness has to stop.

This country is headed for disaster because of fiscal irresponsibility at every level, encouraged by those who think the government can just manipulate the economy a little bit more, just another tweak here or another pinch there. A push here or a squeeze there. But it’s all an illusion as long as the debt keeps growing.

Debt is dangerous. We are selling our sovereignty, like a drunken wastrel squandering his children’s inheritance. Our deficit spending increases exponentially decade after decade. The national debt balloons. Instead of having any plan to pay it off, we keep borrowing more.

Stop the presses! (The ones printing up the dollars, that is.) Stop the borrowing. Stop the spending. Stop overregulating industry and labor so corporations have to send jobs overseas to stay competitive. Stop the subsidies for farmers not to grow crops. Stop all the greasy earmarks. Stop foreign aid. We need our leaders to sit down and acknowledge the fact that the nation is broke — worse than broke. We have a negative net worth!

We cannot go on as we have been. That’s a fallacy. Prolonging the inevitable just gets us deeper in the hole we’re going to have to eventually dig ourselves out of. Let’s stop now, and start demanding fiscal responsibility from our leaders and ourselves.

People don’t learn from their mistakes. They learn from the consequences of their mistakes. If you shield them from the consequences, they’ll make the same mistakes again. I say, no bailouts for lenders or borrowers or gamblers with other people’s money! Let the market correct itself, as painful as that correction will be, and then laissez-faire.

Bookmark/Rate this post: Digg it Stumble It! add to

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

27 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Not only is this “bailout” the wrong thing to do fiscally, there is NO Constitutional foundation for the Federal government to buyout AIG, or any other corporation, this whole Treasury-Federal reserve plan, (which or Congress will support) is 100% unconstitutional!

    “…like a drunken wastrel squandering his children’s inheritance.” is that a Joe Biden reference?

  2. “People don’t learn from their mistakes. They learn from the consequences of their mistakes.”

    This is totally true. Another great rant, NotYourDaddy! I have one question: if the government is not my daddy, who is my daddy? I need a daddy, and I hope he’s rich.

  3. You always insist on blaming the borrowers. Poor little woe is me to the lenders! Whaaa! You underestimate their greed and the depths to which they will lie, cheat and steal. As they say, it takes two tango. I’ve personally had close encounters with nefarious lenders twice in my life. After that, you know with amazing clarity what it is to be lied right to your face in the name of greed.

  4. “…you know with amazing clarity what it is to be lied right to your face…” Very well stated! “Caveat Emptor” seems to reign true yet again! Before ANYONE buys ANYTHING it is their DUTY to research every aspect of the purchase, no one should sign a contract of any kind without understanding what they are signing. My wife and I have purchased 3 houses in our marriage, each and everytime we have hired a real estate lawyer to proof the contracts, I think it cost us about $350.00, not a lot of money when you consider the price of a house. I fault the borrowers for not knowing what they were getting into, that being said, I do support the notion of a State by State instituted investigation into the lending practices that caused this mortgage meltdown and should any nefarious lenders be found, they should be harshly dealt with. As easy as it is to blame the big lenders, they are not solely at fault, they should not be bailed out, nor should the borrowers. Get rid of the ridiculous taxes corporations pay and allow the Free Market to fix it self.

  5. Thanks, DJ. I didn’t mean to imply the problem lies solely with lenders. I think I said, “it takes two to tango.” That’s my way of saying the mortgage market doesn’t go boom boom without BOTH sides of the equation. And I’m just relating that, in my personal experience and observation, mortgage companies and personnel will lie, cheat and steal to get ink on contracts. There have been class action lawsuits against unscrupulous lenders, one of which I was a part of. The contention of the lawsuit was EXACTLY what had happened with my loan, too. To my mind, something that widespread and systemic can only come from the top. In other words, the organization made it happen, not just a few renegade salespeople. NYD made it a point to focus on the borrowers. I’m just sayin’ I find that view to be incomplete.

  6. @Wigglesworth:”I’m just sayin’ I find that view to be incomplete.”

    I agree with you!

    “…one of which I was a part of…”

    I pray you were victorious!

    This whole “Save the Street” or the US will fall into a depression worse than the Great Depression crap is realy starting to get ridiculous! I watched part of Paulson’s testimony today, what the heck is Congress thinking? Giving the former head of Goldman-Sacs over a TRILLION dollars? His fiscal policies appear to be what led G-S into the tank to begin with, now as Treasury his financial policies can save the economy?

    Here is a quote form Pat Buchanoan’s latest column:

    “Then came the Mexican and Asian financial crises and the U.S.-IMF bailouts of the 1990s. The Mexican bailout was as much a rescue of Goldman-Sachs as Mexico City, as Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin’s old firm was choking on all its Mexican paper.”


    So Paulson, a guy attached to G-S since the 70’s, now has the insight and the talent and the ability to get us out of (t)his mess? And our know-nothing do-nothing Congress is going to give him a Trillion dollars. WTF.

  7. Wigglesworth, I don’t think you read the whole post. My main point is that the federal government should not be bailing out failing financial institutions. I only peripherally mentioned individual borrowers. I suspect you’re looking for what you expect to be there, rather than reading what I actually wrote.

    But, for the record, I don’t think they should bail out home buyers who default on their mortgages, either. (So perhaps you were reading my mind, instead of my blog. ;)

  8. NYD, thanks for the reply. Why did I think you focused on borrowers and not lenders? Maybe because you said, “This whole gigantic mess was caused by wide scale irresponsible borrowing.” See, you called the borrows irresponsible, not the lenders. Not once in your post did I see you put any of the onus on the lenders.

    In my view, the problem was caused by both irresponsible lending AND borrowing.

    I’d like to point out that this crisis represents a massive failure of the free market. The markets wanted to be rid of post-depression regulations and they got that wish. And guess what? When the chips were down they acted in the name of greed and not based on any collective “good.” I’ll happily count that as another vote in favor of regulating the free market.

  9. Wiggles, please read my previous posts, What’s Wrong With This Picture? and Sometimes Nothing is the Right Thing to Do, where I have made it clear that I credit both borrowers and lenders with creating the mess we’re in. I think the miscommunication here is that, in this post, when I refer to “borrowing” I’m not speaking of individual borrowers, I’m speaking of the entire Ponzi scheme, from top to bottom, where there is no accountability because the lenders are just borrowing from somebody higher up the chain, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the top, who can siphon the money directly out of the taxpayers to cover their losses. That’s why there’s no accountability. I’m not referring to individual borrowers, but to the phenomemon of a debt-based economy. I’m also referring to the government borrowing from foreign powers, which makes us extremely vulnerable.

    I believe it’s just as wrong for individuals as for financial institutions and the government. But, if the institutions were held accountable for the money they loaned, the irresponsible individuals would not have been able to borrow it in the first place. So I do place the onus much more on the institutions than on the individuals, and above all, on the government for creating this situation.

    As I’ve noted before, liberals will try to blame this on the free market. (Thank you for proving my point.) But it was not the “free market” that got us into this mess. The government created it by allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up bad risks with no accountability because they were backed by the taxpayers. That is not a free market! That is government meddling. In a free market, anybody who loans money is accountable for the risks they incur. If that were the case here, this whole situation would never have occurred.

  10. I’m really scratching my head over here. I am trying to understand your point. You are saying the free market wasn’t the problem because the government allowed organizations to do what they wanted? Isn’t that the definition of a free market? Is it the government’s job to make sure that free market transactions are “accountable?” I’m not even sure what that means? If I want to give Joe $10 American dollars for a rocking chair that he whittled out of a piece of hickory, how is the Dept. of Accountability supposed to step in, and what exactly will they have to say about our little transaction?

    I don’t understand how the possibility of a government bailout AFTER they fact prevented the free market from doing its thing. The only “meddling” happened after the fact. So I don’t think that could have any sort of causal effect.

    Where are my thoughts going wrong here? Help! :)

  11. Wiggles, I never said the problem was that the government allowed organizations to do what they wanted. (You said that.) I said the problem was that the government took all the risk out of the transactions by backing up all the subprime loans with the taxpayers’ credit. The reason the lenders were lending money to people who were bad credit risks was because it wasn’t their money they were risking. It was your money and my money and the money of all the taxpayers in the country.

    Your premise that the government didn’t meddle until after the fact is completely inaccurate. As I have repeated many times, it was the government’s backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Taxpayer that caused the problem. That’s something only the government can do. And the government did it.

    The government doesn’t need to make sure transactions are accountable. In a free market, a lender has to take the risk of a borrower defaulting, so the lender won’t make the loan if the risk is too great. But, when the government takes all the risk upon itself (i.e., the taxpayers), it encourages irresponsible lending because the government has removed all accountability from the system. That’s government meddling. And that’s what got us here today.

  12. Heck, as someone too poor to afford buying a home, I really have no knowledge of the intricacies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To me those are just nebulous concepts from the land of far, far away. Loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are backed by government guarantees? I agree that sounds like nonsense. If you take away all risk, of course companies will go willy nilly.

    What about other organizations, though, like Countrywide and such? Are they backed by government guarantees? If they didn’t have the same guarantees then they DID assume a stupid amount of risk. (And, I’d argue, that DOES sound like free market to me.)

    And if the government guarantees to cover all the risk, why do we need a bailout package? Shouldn’t the government just do what it foolish said it would do?

    Lastly, I’ve heard much hullabaloo about the industry asking for post-depression era regulations to be relaxed under the guise of “you can trust us.” This was back in the 70’s or 80’s I’ve heard. If true, that sounds a lot like a step in the direction of freer markets.

    Still a little confused here. :)

  13. Wiggles, all the mortgage companies (including Countrywide) sell the mortgages they issue to mortgage aggregators, who sell them in turn to bigger mortgage aggregators. It’s a pyramid scheme with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the top, as by far and away the biggest mortgage aggregators in the country. The reason the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac happened was because when the bottom fell out, they had to fall back on their backing — which was us. The taxpayers.

    The AIG bailout is another story. When so many institutions started failing, there arose a market in “swaps” which were basically hedge bets on whether an institution would fail. AIG was heavily invested in these. It would take too many pages to explain it here, but here’s a good article from the Wall Street Journal on it. Worst Crisis Since ’30s, With No End Yet in Sight

    Here’s one from Time. How Financial Madness Overtook Wall Street.

    And here’s an article from Bloomberg News on how this could have been averted, but wasn’t.

  14. Daddy–

    Just a thought.

    I’m not sure you’re wrong. It’s just the rules that have me concerned. Under current rules, I don’t see how you can be right.

    Explaining “mark to market” isn’t a simple task, especially if the audience I want to talk with has little or no experience in making financial decisions. The idea that an asset, or class of assets, can affect the value of an entire class of assets held by all portfolios is a pretty good stretch. It simply isn’t intuitive.

    If my assets are good–even given an up to four percent failure rate–why should I be penalized by institutions that have a greater holding of lower valued assets? Why should I be forced to revalue my portfolio base upon mark-to-market rules?

    And if, as my portfolio declines, I’m required to increase my capitalization–in the face of healthy cash flows–how can you expect me to maintain my lending habits when the mark to market rules require me to revalue my assets?

    I would rather we take our medicine now. Knowing that it’s going to cost me money. Rather than depending upon another set of bureaucrats to redeem value. But, are you sure you want to force me to do this without removing mark to market? (And didn’t the Resolution Trust Corporation work beyond your expectations? It did mine.)

    If you have a chance, take a look at Speaker Gingrich’s recommendations. I do believe in strong medicine for markets. I just don’t think we’ve gotten yet to the place where smart guys are willing to return to market values.

    Should we force market conditions on industries that are constrained from excersing market choices on held assets?

  15. OregonGuy, when you say you would rather take our medicine now, which medicine are you suggesting we take? The bailout, or the crisis that will ensue if the bailout doesn’t happen? If we go with the bailout, we’re not really taking our medicine now; we’re just deferring the crisis by sinking the entire nation deeper into debt to foreign powers, from whom we must borrow to bail out the failed institutions. If we let them fail, then we face an immediate crisis, but it will eventually pass. That’s what I would consider taking our medicine now.

    I also really don’t like the idea of socializing the financial sector. The last thing we need is to expand the scope of government even further…

  16. I’ll check out those links. Thanks.

    But are you saying that all loans are backed by guarantees from the government? I find that hard to believe. I think there MUST be some that aren’t. And when those unbacked loans collapsed, that, in my view, represents market failure.

  17. Wiggles, you are determined to find a way to blame this on the free market. I cannot convince you because you’ve already reached your conclusion. But, again, when the government meddles in the free market, you no longer have a free market. You cannot say the part of it that remained free screwed up also, because once you remove the natural constraint of risk aversion, you no longer have a free market.

    The free market is based on the market finding a natural equilibrium between opposing forces, e.g., supply and demand, risk vs. gain potential. When you artificially constrain any one of those critical elements, you destroy the natural balance that defines the free market. Consider a balance scale. One side of the scale balances the other. If you remove the weight from one side of the scale, can you say the other side failed because it didn’t stay level?

    What caused the collapse was bad loans. What caused the bad loans was the absence of accountability for the risk incurred by bad loans. What caused the absence of accountability was the fact that, ultimately, the risk was assumed by the taxpayer, rather than by the lenders who incurred the risk. It’s called gambling with other people’s money. And it was the federal government that removed the risk from the equation. And they did it deliberately. They believed they could improve on the natural balance of the free market through imposing “beneficial” policies to help people who couldn’t afford homes to buy them.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we’re about to reap what our socially beneficial economic policies have sown. Hang on tight.

  18. I’m trying to decide if the “Wiggles” truncation is insulting or not. Actually, though, I kind of like the sound of it. :)

    I guess what you are saying is that the “free” elements of the market saw what the “non-free” elements of the market were up to and collectively said, “Hey, we want a piece of that super risky action, too, even though we have the same protections against risk that they have.” Is that it?

    I agree with you on SOME of the bad loans that were accountable. ALL bad loans, however, were not. I guess that is an area where we disagree.

    Are you saying that a total free market would be infallible? It is still a system created by humans and, therefore, as imperfect as humans. No doubt you’ll be quick on the quip with, “But it’s the best system we’ve got.” I’m not so sure about that. I think it’s the best system we’ve got so far would be slightly more accurate. We’ve seen time and time again the destructive power of unregulated industry. Somehow my gut tells me that in this particular case, latching on the the Federal guarantees on bad loans is a cop out. And I never got my question answered either, that if all those bad loans were so guaranteed, why do we need a bailout? Why isn’t it simply some sort of procedural thing, then?

  19. Wiggles, I would never insult you. Isn’t Wiggles an acceptable nickname for Wigglesworth?

    No, I’m not saying the “free elements” saw or reacted to anything. Are you suggesting that, when you take the weight off of one side of a balance scale, the other side moves because it saw the other side move and figures it might as well move, too? Why are you certain that all of the bad loans were not motivated by lack of accountability? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, by far, the largest mortgage aggregators in the country, and only about 3%-4% of all mortgages have defaulted.

    If I’m gambling with somebody else’s money, and take bad risks because the taxpayers will cover my losses, and you’re gambling with your own money, at your own risk, why would the fact that I was taking bad risks encourage you to do so as well? That doesn’t make sense. The institutions that took the bad risks did so because they weren’t risking their own money. The ones who were risking their own capital (what you refer to as the “free elements”) had no motivation to take bad risks.

    I don’t know what you mean by infallible. I’m certainly not saying you will always like what happens in a free market. But, as I have pointed out before, the free market is not a system created by humans. The laws of supply and demand were not created by man, but rather observed, like the laws of gravity or natural selection. Once humans start imposing policies to regulate the market, then it is a system created by humans. But then it is not a free market.

  20. I ran across this article on the CRA, I think it provides some background to the housing bubble inplosion and answers some of the questions that have been asked on this post.

  21. Human behavior is not a scale. Of course people watch what is going on around them and react. Some may copy success and attempt to go with the flow. Others may devise new ways to compete. I think that’s a big part of the market. So yeah, if some companies saw “easy money” out on the table, even though it was risky, they figured, “hey, everyone else is doing it. Why not us, too?”

    Why am I certain all bad loans weren’t motivated by a lack of accountability? I guess if I ever get my question answered – are all loans guaranteed by the government? – then we’ll both know.

    I don’t know how the free market isn’t a human system. The concept of money was created by humans. A bear, for example, simply lets an older, weaker bear catch a fish, then bullies the fish for himself. That’s a different system.

  22. Thanks for the response.

    By “taking our medicine now”: the current “plan”, although neither you nor I have seen said plan, is to infuse a massive underwriting through the commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars in increased federal debt to replace portfolio value as a result of the current rules; this is the argument that is taking place over the Mark to Market rules (if my understanding of the “plan” is correct); so, taking the medicine means forcing the holders of these bad assets to share a greater portion of that risk than the federal government. From what I’ve been able to “see” of the “plan”, the “plan” requires the government to assume all risk of these portfolios.

    What’s wrong with the FDIC model? Give Freddie and Fannie a dollar, take the assets and repackage them? Have you seen any part of the “plan” that calls for the elimination of Freddie and Fannie? Isn’t it true that the “plan” is to maintain Freddie and Fannie, and the policiies that has led to this problem?

    I have yet to hear a single federal official state “Freddie and Fannie are dead.”

    For Democrats, taking our medicine now must mean agreeing to end the practise of using the full faith and credit to promote an ownership scheme that fails to take credit-worthiness into account. And, without credit-worthiness as an issue, what is the purpose of Freddie and Fannie? If we have a national housing stock of $46-trillion dollars, and the value of that stock is overstated by 2-3 trillion dollars, taking our medicine now means a burst of the housing bubble. You and I are going to take hits on our “wealth” (see Friedman and Wealth Curve.)

    But wealth is a predictor of consumption. It is not directly linked to our ability to pay. If one component of my portfolio–my house–takes a ten to twenty percent hit on value, but my real earnings increase or remain the same, am I more or less able to make the mortgage payment?

    I am less wealthy, but am I worse off? So, take our medicine. Remove the “socially desirable” mortgage underwriting, bring mortgage portfolios to market standards of valuation and transparency, and quit underwriting the housing bubble. Let real prices of our housing stock adjust.

    I see none of this under the “plan”.

  23. OregonGuy, I agree with you. We should take our medicine now, and that is not what the “plan” is proposing. Personally, I’m in favor of killing off Fannie and Freddie. Social engineering in the financial markets has now been proven to be a disastrous failure of epic proportions.

    Wiggles, all loans are not guaranteed by the federal government. But the way mortgage banking works today is that almost all mortgages are bought up by mortgage aggregators. Mortgage aggregators sell to larger mortgage aggregators. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the biggest mortgage aggregators, and the sit at the top of the pyramid.

    Also, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the main instruments of the government policy of making it possible for more people buy houses they couldn’t afford. That is the root of the problem. There are undoubtedly some mortgages in default that are not aggregated by Fannie and Freddie. There always are some defaults, even in a healthy economy. But this disaster was created by the policies implemented through Fannie and Freddie. Please don’t take my word for that. Look it up on the Web. This is well known and I doubt you could find any financial news source, mainstream or otherwise, that disputes it. What is in dispute is not the cause of the problem, but what to do about it.

  24. And I never got my question answered either, that if all those bad loans were so guaranteed, why do we need a bailout? Why isn’t it simply some sort of procedural thing, then?

    The bailout is the guarantee. What the government guaranteed was that, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought up too many high risk mortgages, and they all started to fail, instead of going out of business (like they would in a free market), they would be backed by the taxpayers money. I.e., a federal bailout.

    The problem is, nobody ever expected it to actually happen. And, when it did, it was much worse than anybody ever imagined, and the ramifications were much more far-reaching because of hedging and swaps. (See the WSJ article to which I posted a link earlier.)

    [Wiggles, I just posted a new post that should help explain what I’ve been trying to explain piecemeal in these comments.]

  25. […] popping, people have lost their jobs, getting access to loans and other credit is stiffening, and federal bailouts are occurring. There are those that choose to live in a world of ignorance devised of pretending that our […]

  26. […] presents No Federal Bailouts! posted at Government is not your […]

  27. I totally agree w/ you but I am gonna tell you how this whole crisis affected main street (me personally).I would like for you and your reader’s to know what kind of damage this is doing to AMERICAN families across the country. Some of your reader’s might be going through the same thing and I would like them to know what to do. Now my husband and I bought a home about a year ago and to make a long story short(u can read my blog for the whole story)our home is in foreclosure not bc of the subprime meltdown bc when we bougt our home we had money in the bank for emergencies(just not enough obviously)We had no clue the chain of events that were about to befall us you see we moved in on a husband went to work that MON.(he is a truckdriver)there was a sign on the door due to soaring GAS prices we can no longer afford to keep our doors open. So yes my husband has lost his job. We were beyong terrified.Now remember we had enough savings until he found a job. Until the very next day when our intire plumbing system collasped. We thought we would be covered you know with our Homeowners Insurance,AHS warranty,plus I got the most expensivie and extensive home inspection I stayed w/ the man who inspected the home for 6 in a half hours he actually got a little aggervated at me because I was right on his heels the whole time. Anyway you guessed it all 3 of those entities had LOOPHOLES in their contract(big business for ya)So we had to drain our savings account plus come up w/another 3000$ dollars to keep our yard from becoming a CESS POOL.Now I could go on and on but like I said u can read my blog if you want the whole story. Now are AMERICAN DREAM has turned into the AMERICAN NIGHTMARE. So anyway we had no income, no savings, no groceries,no health ins for are girls. We were broke and pennyless.So guess what I had to do swallow a bunch and believe me a bunch of pride and ask our gov’t for food assistance and health ins for our girls until we get back on our feet.Guess what I was told your husband made too much money the previous month for us to qualify for any kind of assistance. I told them that I wansn’t hungry last month we are hungry this month. All I got was your Gov’t owes you nothing. I told the lady that I wanted the 400$ that the gov’t took out of my husband’s paycheck every week from the previous month then I wouldn’t need your foodstamps. Anyway I started knocking on doors and cleaning houses to put food on the table.The mort. co. wouldn’t work w/us and put us into accelerated foreclosure. It took my husband 3 weeks to find a good job but,after the whole plumbing thing and no groceries,and his job holding out the first 2 paycheck we were in a major bind. Now the story does have a happy ending. Every time my home would come up for auction I would pack my girls a pic-nic and take there favorite toys and we would sit on the courthouse steps and I would ask people not to bid on my home I would tell them my story and they wouldn’t bid because people are people and not account numbers. I was trying to force the mort. co. to work w/ me and guess what it worked. I started calling SAXON/MORT. Every single day asking them to work w/ me I would write every person’s name down and I tried getting in contact w/the CEO of saxon mort. I found out that morgan/stanley owns my mort. co. and as soon as I tried setting up a meeting w/ John J.Mack
    I get a phone call saying Holly saxon mort. wants to work w/u so my home is out of foreclosure and my husband has an awesome job w/ an awesome co. and I am just trying to let other people know that if you are willing to work hard you can save your home.
    ps SAXON MORTGAGE is being bailed out by me with my tax dollars (how ironic is that)

    THX for listening,

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: