Change.org

 

Ideas Home
»
Social Lending
»
Suggestions

Suggestions for Action

What do you think is the most effective way to turn this idea into real policy? Add your suggestions here for how you think we should run an advocacy campaign to advance the idea – including the overall strategy, messaging, targets, and tactics.

Approach this from the standpoint that people reading this forum already agree with you on the importance of the issue, and are asking "What can we do to help make this a reality?"

You can also comment on and rank the suggestions submitted by others.

  1. Elijah Alexander, Jr.

    Few Americans will be willing to live this way after having "free enterprise" for so long, but it is the only way to correct our ecconomical situation.

    Getting the United States of America to live by its Declaration of Independence (DI) and Constitution (USC) is the most important factor for getting the country's economy back on track. Both of these fundamental documents contain statements such as "...all man are created equal..." and "...unalienable rights..." (DI),  and "in order to...establish justice..." (USC) which, according to their true definition, will direct this nation towards becoming the united nation, its name suggests, and the world's peace leader.  Since the usual definition for "justice" appears to be so vague, it should be defined as "entitlement for actions or performance".

    Every man has the "inalienable right" to self-government, which provides all man with the same rights towards life requirements, whether they live in or out of civilization.  Civilization is defined as man inter-depending on other man to provide them with goods over and beyond survival needs. Civilizations have established the way of life in which individuals are dependent on others to sustain themselves with those necessities they have grown to need under false pretense, which would be unnecessary if they lived in nature.  Since they created these needs, nations must provide them to their citizens who have grown to depend on them.

    The solution to resolve the economical situation while keeping all man on equal grounds is to eliminate the use and existence of money, and establish a culture where all would be required to either serve the nation, or learn to live within nature, like other animals.  Since man in mass are not willing to live in nature, they would perform their choice of duty necessary to keep them from being self responsible in nature.  Creating such system would bring equality to every man. Except for what is necessary to maintain the working of the state, the president would not get anything more than other citizens from street sweepers, garbage man, lawmakers, judges, factory workers, independent contractors, teachers, students, or housewives, as examples.  

    This nation was established based on the United States Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. However, it has never conformed to their doctrine. Reestablishing the nation as it was initially meant to be governed by those laws and principles it will correct the system.

    Suggested by Elijah Alexander, Jr. on 03/17/2009 @ 08:29PM PT

  2. Michael Cirella

     My way to ease the mortgage problem and get Americans to gain confidence to spend money is very basic.It will not cost the government zillions of dollars.
     Every person who has a mortgage will for 2 years from the starting date pay 1/2 of their regular mortgage.At the end of the mortgage they will pay 2 additional years 1/2 the mortgage.In this plan the government will not have to print billions of dollars to stimulate the economy the money people are saving each month will build the confidence necessary to start spending again.The banks will not have nearly as many homes in default which will raise home values.Instead of spending money for banks the government can concentrate on creating even more jobs.
    Please feel free to drop me a line to explain in greater detail some of my plans.
     They are so simple that they will work.........
    Thanks,mike

    Suggested by Michael Cirella on 01/30/2009 @ 09:01PM PT

  3. Big Cowboy

    Lending Club can support lenders from the following states:

    California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming

    If you live in a state not listed, please contact your state's agencies to pressure them to approve Lending Club.

    Lending Club also doesn't support borrowers from the following states:

    Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Tennessee

    If you live in one of there states, please contact your state's agencies to pressure them to approve Lending Club.

    - BigCowboy

    Suggested by Big Cowboy on 01/29/2009 @ 06:32AM PT

  4. Thomas Manning

     My Mortgage Rescue PlanWhen a homeowner applies for refinancing today, his lender (bank) has stricter qualifying standards than he had very recently. These higher standards effectively currently disqualify a huge number of borrowers who had refinanced or purchased at higher rates within the last several years. As a consequence of higher standards, these homeowners, are unable to obtain refinancing that would reduce their monthly payments.  Many of these ‘otherwise’ borrowers put their homes on the market. Market invetories rise and as inventories rise, values go down. As they go down, lenders become increasingly more reluctant to loan. The lender properly sees that home as a declining asset, as risky collateral. This vicious cycle seems to act like a tropical storm and nobody knows how much damage it might cause. So my solution steps in when the lender says ‘no’ to the ‘otherwise’ qualified applicant. That ‘refinance denial’ could be the tool to help repair the system. This tool provides an option for the lender and the borrower. That lender under concern who denies the applicant could futher determine whether the refinance applicant has inadequate supporting means or liquid assets, but otherwise has acceptable credit scores, and a regular income, to qualify for my solution, a direct from the government partial mortgage underwriting. 

    Here's the basic proposal:    The homeowner who applies for, but fails to qualify for refinancing, obtains the 'qualifying document' (loan rejection) from that ‘qualified lender’ who, being subject to regulatory standards, cannot offer refinancing. This document, which states the reason for denial, and confirms that the borrower has an otherwise qualifying credit score.  This document would be used to be forwarded to my solution agency to allow the homeowner to seek relief.  For the sake of further imagining my solution, let’s call that corporation the American Mortgage Assistance Corporation or AMAC.AMAC’s sole purpose would be to bridge one primary gap which enables our current lending crisis. (Banks won’t loan on declining assets.) The AMAC is not a private bank. It is an office of the U.S. Treasury. Its staff is not open to the public. It exists primarily as an accounting entity and source of funds to be obtained directly from existing TARP funds or similar assets. As funds are needed by the ‘qualified’ applicant homeowners, requests are submitted directly to the AMAC. Those funds, (if approved) are then passed forward to the lender who denied the applicant’s refinancing but who is utilizing this solution for his borrower.  That borrower who 'qualifies for AMAC assistance' would obtain a 2nd loan from the government, equal in amount to 50% of his current mortgage balance.  This 50% amount   can be spent ONLY to pay down the existing first mortgage by 50%.  (If a second or third lien exists, they would have to first be reworked and consolidated.) The first note-holder must then agree that the 1st  Note (mortgage contract) be re-written to reflect a newly  amortized monthly payment (based on the 1st) equal to  ½ its previous monthly payment.  (There should be no objection but a contract must be changed.) That rewritten loan would keep the same interest rate, the same amortization period, but for ½ the principal  amount but the monthly payment. (The first lien-holder’s risk is reduced enormously since he will be paid ½ of what he’s owed.)At the time of the 50% pay-off, the lender will also write a second lien against the borrower’s property, equal to the amount used to pay down the 1st plus documentation and recording fees (not to exceed $500) in favor of  AMAC,  payable to the U.S. Treasury.
    However, (and this is the benefit), the interest rate on the second lien will equal 50% of the interest rate on the first lien.

    For example if 50% of an existing 6.6% per annum original note is paid off, then the second, or     AMAC loan, would be written and recorded at 3.3%.
    A collection escrow would then be set up with     AMAC to receive one lump payment to pay both loans, (just like a Wrap-Around Mortgage). AMAC would be in a position to directly ‘see’  the efficacy of the plan and pull the plug if things went sideways.

     The object of such a scheme will be to reduce the monthly payment approximately 25% of the original lien’s monthly mortgage amount. Then several very desirable things happen:1. The LENDER BANK who owns the note will be strengthened substantially as 1/2 of the remaining balance due is paid. 2. The HOMEOWNER’S financial position is strengthened as his payment is about 25% lower each month. He can see that his payment approaches what he may have to pay in rent and many will decide to take their homes off the market (an enormous help to reducing housing inventories). He will have funds to contribute to restoring the economy. (A homeowner paying down a $200,000 mortgage with 20 years renmaining at the rate of 6.6% will be paying about $1,503/month. With my scheme his payment is reduced to about $1,127/month. Homeowners who can actually qualify refinance 100% of their existing loan without the government’s assistance through a conventional lender would receive about the same benefit.)3. The TREASURY would receive 3.3% interest from the example homeowner above. That lien would be paid off in full at the time the home owner sold his home just like any other lien. However it might be set up to allow some 'nearly qualified' buyers to assume that existing 'wrap around' 2nd loan if  such an option made sense to the government.
    The TREASURY (American taxpayers) also gets something back with minimal waste.    4. The ECONOMY benefits in speed of recovery if those homeowners who would otherwise sell their homes, take those homes off the market.  Many would as their new payment would be near or less than local rent.The MAC rate would last as long as the 1st mortgage exists. The loans must be written to pay both down equally (unless some fool would rather pay off the AMAC loan first).  My own home has been on the market for 7 months. It’s a great home with refinished hardwood floors and 2 coats of quality paint inside and out. Even though my mortgage is only $815/month I can’t sell it. Meanwhile my income is declining. (I’m a Realtor!) My credit scores are good, but because of my reduced income I won’t qualify to refinance. I should ‘qualify’ for an AMAC loan. If so my payment would be reduced to about $610/month. At that rate I would take my home off the market since I know I wouldn’t find a decent rental for that monthly amount! Then I could wait things out and I’d take my home off the market. Reducing the real estate inventory (listed properties) would be a very big help and is leveraged with my solution.Stopping the foreclosure crisis is essential to save our economy!  My AMAC stimulus can be observed easily by AMAC by simply their looking at the data within their collection escrow system. AMAC would also be in an easy position to mail questionnaires to homeowners in their monthly statements.  The program could to expire to new borrowers in various parts of the country as the Treasury deems necessary.
    If you think this makes sense, or have questions or suggestions email me at     hthomasmanning@msn.comThomas Manning
    Realtor

    Suggested by Thomas Manning on 01/24/2009 @ 03:09PM PT

  5. Mike Young

    My idea for solving the credit and economical problems is to Abolish the Federal Reserve, place the power to print and control our money back into the hands of our own Treasury department. Then have Congress ask the Treasury Department to print up enough money to get our economy rolling again, and have all of this needed money available INTEREST FREE. That way we would owe interest money to nobody. Historically Kings refused to allow usery or interest charges by Banks and Lending Institutions because it interferred with economical growth, and it created a condition of stagnation to the economy. The only time that usery laws were recreated, was when Banks were empowered again, and started charging interest again. This struggle for the control an empires  finances or a nations  money supply, and the issueance of money, has been happening for many years. Thomas Jefferson made a speech concerning central banks controlling the issueance of a nations money supply. The speech goes as follows and I quote, "If the American people ever allow Private Banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation, then by deflation, the Banks and Corporations that grew up around the Central Banks, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." That speech was written long before the privately held Bank called the Federal Reserve ever exhisted, but the same meaning applies today as well. Abolish our Central Bank called the Federal Reserve, and our country will prosper once again. Keep the Central Bank and our economy will continue to fail, its that simple. Banks should not be regulated, but they should be allowed to compete for their customers business. Competition is good for business. If a bank fails then it wasn't run properly to begin with and it should fail.   

    Suggested by Mike Young on 01/24/2009 @ 02:23PM PT

  6. Big Cowboy

    Another outfit is joining the p2p lending community, www.PertuityDirect.com.  This outfit runs p2p lending like a mutual fund.  Lenders buy shares in a "mutual fund"; that money is lent out by the outfit to individual borrowers.  The "mutual funds" cater to different credit qualities of borrowers, and (later) to different kinds of borrowers.

    Pertuity Direct might make an additional partner to uncrunch.

    -BigCowboy

    Suggested by Big Cowboy on 01/24/2009 @ 07:03AM PT

  7. Dwight Berry

    Any bank receiving TARP money should have to lower their credit card rates down to 5%. That way we can atleast make sure the average person gets something out of the deal.

    Suggested by Dwight Berry on 01/23/2009 @ 06:41PM PT

  8. James Fabiano

    In order for consumerism to succeed we need consumers By J. G. Fabiano
    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday that President-elect Barack Obama's proposed fiscal stimulus package could help the economy, but he added that additional bailouts of financial institutions may also be needed to bring about a sustained economic recovery.

    So far, as far as I know, we have bailed out the banks, Wall Street, giant investment firms, insurance companies, and the automobile industry. Remember the bail out comes from our tax dollars. If our government does not have the money they will borrow it. This means we will not only have to pay back the principle but will also be responsible for the interest. We are told if we don't do this dire consequences will happen that will make the Great Depression look like a weekend in Burmuda.

    The new administration is discussing ways in which the tax payer can get some help from the disaster that was caused by the people who caused the economic downturn. These are the same concerns we are being asked to bail out. Some ideas include giving everyone a $500.00 deduction and extending unemployment insurance. These programs would help but they would not turn the consumer around to buy more and thus pull all of us out of the recession.

    I have an idea. This concept should be popular with the millions of people who are having a difficult time paying their credit card debt. This will not be popular with the banks even though it could liquidate many debts and thus make the banks more liquid. I understand the banks would rather have a bail out with few strings attached but so would the people who are paying for the bail out today and well into their futures. Hell, well into the futures of their children.

    I propose a means the credit card customer could negotiate a payment that would eliminate the balance on the card. For example, if a consumer has a rolling debt of $5000.00, they could negotiate with the banks of giving them a payment of $3000.00, that would eliminate the debt. The credit card company would then limit the credit line to $1000.00 until the customer proves that he or she can handle the debt. This would allow the consumer to consume again. Today the consumer is only allowed to negotiate the finance charge on the debt. If a person falls behind on payments these charges could make it literally impossible for the consumer to ever pay it off.

    Obviously the banks would lose some money. But, lets talk about the alternative. If the credit card customer is unable to handle the debt of $5,000.00, and goes into default the credit card company would be forced to bring the customer to court. This would cause an expense to the bank. One might say the customer would be forced to pay the expense but remember they couldn't pay the debt in the first place. In court the judge would ask the credit card company and the consumer to make a deal so the customer could pay the debt. This is usually 50 cents on the dollar. What I am stating is the bank would end up losing more money than they would if my proposed idea were put into effect.

    The banks that refuse to help their customers would not get any money for a bail out. The bank card customers would also not lose standing in any credit bureau. There would be no penalty for the consumer as there is no penalty to the banks for a bail out. Each individual bank and consumer would work their own deal. If a customer has a poor credit rating then the deal would be equated using their credit standing. If a customer has a good credit rating then a better deal could be made. A watch dog agency would have to be used to make sure both the banks and creditors live up to their agreement.

    If the banks decide to refuse this proposal I sincerely believe we, as tax payers should refuse to give them money as a bail out. Our nation is built on consumerism. If our population can't consume because of financial restraints this massive recession will never go away. In fact, it will grow into something our children and our children's children will have to deal with throughout most of their lives.
    Jim Fabiano, a teacher and writer who lives in York, is a past recipient of the Maine Press Association’s award for Best Weekly Column. You can E-mail Jim at: jfabino@maine.rr.com.

    Suggested by James Fabiano on 01/23/2009 @ 11:32AM PT

  9. BOB GERECKE

    Credit unions are numerous across the nation and are owned by their members instead of investors.  The elected members who serve on their governing boards have a conscience.  The US government should pump money into credit unions, which would loan it out instead of hoarding it, because they haven't destroyed their balance sheets as a result of gambling in risky mortgage securities and their derivatives.  This is another avenue to bring credit where it's needed, in addition to those proposed.

    Suggested by BOB GERECKE on 01/22/2009 @ 09:32PM PT

  10. bob crespi

    Instead of nationalizing the banks, just nationalize the "toxic" debts.  Have the US Gov take ownership of all forclosed property at an amount that bank can afford to lose.  Yes the banks should lose a little.  The US Gov would become the largest land owner, and it can use that resource to stimulate the economy later on.  The banking system would already be repaired.  Municiplaities may have to eat the property taxes but then again they do share some responsibility as they helped caused this by pushing to have the county appraisers to raise taxable values on everybody year after year.

    Suggested by bob crespi on 01/22/2009 @ 11:45AM PT

Write a Suggestion

If you would like to leave a suggestion please sign in, or create an account

Endorsements for this Idea

Nonprofits and bloggers can formally endorse an idea they support. 27 current endorsements:


Endorse this Idea!

Nonprofits and bloggers can formally endorse an idea they support by completing the form below. If you represent a nonprofit, using an official organizational email address (e.g. "john@greenpeace.org" for Greenpeace) will expedite the process of confirming your organization's endorsement.

Nonprofit or Blogger?     
 
Name of Nonprofit / Blog
 
URL
 
Your First Name
 
Your Last Name
 
Your Email
 
close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.