Hacker News Reader

Comment by jordanb | Hacker News Reader

This is called "extend and pretend." It's what's happening now with office loans.

Conversely during the GFC the Obama administration put a plan together to allow people to get their loan terms adjusted (write down). The plan was very long, bureaucratic, and difficult to follow. Nearly everyone who attempted to use the scheme failed to successfully complete it and receive the write down.

When asked about this, an administration official explained that the plan was never designed to give homeowners relief. Instead the purpose was to dangle a carrot in front of their nose to get them to struggle and sacrifice to continue to make full payments as long as possible so that the banks didn't have to take losses as quickly.

View on HN

citation needed

"Bailout: How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street", Neil Barofsky, page 157

Note though that he is only quoting "off the record" conversations with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner

reality is stranger than fiction. yes citation needed. but this seems banal compared to what things go down.

You can google "Home Affordable Modification Program" and "foam the runway" [for the banks]. But here's one of many articles:

https://prospect.org/economy/needless-default/

"The cynical view is that HAMP worked exactly to the Treasury's liking. Both Senator Elizabeth Warren and former Special Inspector General for TARP Neil Barofsky revealed that then-Secretary Geithner told them HAMP's purpose was to "foam the runway" for the banks. In other words, it allowed banks to spread out eventual foreclosures and absorb them more slowly. Homeowners are the foam being steamrolled by a jumbo jet in that analogy, squeezed for as many payments as they can manage before losing their homes."

That's the problem with these "citation needed" remarks, those who say it never come back after they received the high quality citations.

Even if I didn’t return, that’s irrelevant - you are not engaging in a 1-1 discussion. You are posting on an open discussion for the entire internet to see. Most threads aren’t back-and-forth between single individuals, but rather a chain of unique authors.

I specified it because the comment very clearly lacked a citation due to touching controversial political subjects, and any future reader benefits from such citation if added.

I could have made a lengthy complaint and specified concerns about not attaching supporting references - such as unclear attribution that can obscure possible underlying political agendas - but that itself would add nothing not covered by: citation needed. With a citation, people can judge for themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com