Here's an idea, Let's bail out everyone who has been forclosed on!

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Here's an idea, Let's bail out everyone who has been forclosed on!


    FOXNews.com - $300B Housing Rescue Plan Passes Key Senate Test - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

    I can't believe that this is actually going through Congress. Lets teach those hundreds of thousands of Americans who bought home's on risky loans without enough financial backing that we'll just bail them out. That they need not learn from their mistakes.


  2. wtf...its coming out of our tax dollars like always right?
    •   
       


  3. I'm currently in a crappy mortgage that threatens to put me under...but I do not approve of a bailout.

  4. its a thin line to walk, but for the most part you guys are right, the government cannot and shouldnt do this. these people either need to try and sell, or talk to the mortgage co.'s and see if they can work something out. most companies are looking to deal at this point b/c of all the f/c's that have been out there

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    its a thin line to walk, but for the most part you guys are right, the government cannot and shouldnt do this. these people either need to try and sell, or talk to the mortgage co.'s and see if they can work something out. most companies are looking to deal at this point b/c of all the f/c's that have been out there


    There's quite a few folks out there who made sound investments into homes when things were going well only to have the company they worked for in some cases many years pull the rug out from under them (can you say Enron). I think there should be some sort of compromise that can be worked out to help these people.


    :bruce3:
    •   
       


  6. I don't completely blame people for their circumstances. The subprime business was only a portion of forclosures. It's been the near record drop in house prices that have affected "cash poor" people who looked at their house as an investment. Sure it would be nice of the Federal Govt to help them out, but the question is how do you determine who gets money and who doesn't? Does the smuck who purchased a $400,000 home on a $50,000/yr salary deserve to be bailed out? I would hazard with a big NO...but there are some people who saved money and used a not so great mortgage loan to purchase a home for their family, going off the basis that housing prices had increased steadily and there was no sign of that changing.

    But the government wants to spend 300B dollars to fix this problem, and I say thats not the answer. There is nothing wrong with renting. I do it...so do others. Not everyone was cut out to own a home, as elitist as that sounds.

  7. I personally resent the hell out of tax dollars going to bail people out of dealing with the consequences of their actions.

    Since when it is the job of the federal government to take money from one party and give it to another? This was never supposed to be the function of our government.

    But I guess some people perpetually need a mommy.

    If they are going to pass this legislation then it should be legal for me to go and stay in any of these peoples homes, as I helped to pay for them.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by bioman View Post
    I'm currently in a crappy mortgage that threatens to put me under...but I do not approve of a bailout.

    You're wrong. Congress says so. Chris Dodd knows more about your circumstance than you do.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  9. Well, if Chris Dodd is dumb enough to pay off my mortage, then I guess i will let him. lol

    Of course, then I should probably expatriate before the govt makes their money back at 10,000% interest in the form of tax increases.

  10. A house isn't an investment - assuming it is, and therein assuming it will produce you additional capital, lands you in hotwater when the market for that particular commodity changes. IMO, people shouldn't be bailed out for failing to make that distinction, regardless of the circumstance.

    There are many, many, many things I endorse additional taxation for; correcting misinformed decisions isn't one of them. Bad, bad idea.

  11. My wife and i just bought our first house in tampa, and we are waiting to close on it at the end of the month. The house we bought was from a couple that fit the typical description/scenario as to why there are so many forclosures right now.

    It's a shame that so many people foolishly bought so far outside their means and are now paying for it, but i also agree that some people had circumstances arise out of their control that played into the hardship as well (i.e illness, loss of job, family, divorce).

    Being a buyer's market right now enabled us make a killing for what we got vs. what we paid. I couldn't be happeir myself on our deal, but i truly feel bad for those that had things happen out of their control leading to a forclosure.

    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    Legendary


  12. Quote Originally Posted by Trauma1 View Post
    My wife and i just bought our first house in tampa, and we are waiting to close on it at the end of the month. The house we bought was from a couple that fit the typical description/scenario as to why there are so many forclosures right now.

    It's a shame that so many people foolishly bought so far outside their means and are now paying for it, but i also agree that some people had circumstances arise out of their control that played into the hardship as well (i.e illness, loss of job, family, divorce).

    Being a buyer's market right now enabled us make a killing for what we got vs. what we paid. I couldn't be happeir myself on our deal, but i truly feel bad for those that had things happen out of their control leading to a forclosure.
    what also is an option for some is that there are government insured lenders like an FHA mortgage for example that does not take credit into their decision making, so people have options. The major concern is the equity and/or value of the home if they were approaching f/c and wanted to refi. Its a rough situation.

    I agree 100% that the government should not be bailing people out who made horrible decisions, however, throughout the last century we have seen the issues that happens to banks when f/c's hit high numbers. The bank lose money hand over fist, which creates a downward spiral for banks.

    I also agree that for some circumstances, help is necessary, based on exigent circumstances.

  13. I'm 100% against the government bailing these banks/people out when it comes to my ideological beliefs but I"m also not so stubborn to know when reality trumps ideology. Its the reason I didn't mind the Bear Stearns bailout and probably why I won't mind that much over this one. Sometimes the damage caused is not proportional and this would definitely be one of those cases.

    If the government didn't interfere in the first place, this would never have happened.

    They caused this problem back in the 90's...not "predatory lenders". We have "predatory lenders" and "speculators" causing the problems....if you believe that one I have a bridge for sale.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  14. It seems like if they caused the problem, then they have to fix it, no?

    In any case, I wish this whole problem would get resolved. I have a mediocre mortgage. I'm not going to go under anytime soon, but If I was a risk taker, I could probably get screwed.


    The thing is, the only deal I was offered was an ARM. Someone my age will not get approved for a 30 year fixed with an affordable monthly payment. The only people that can realistically afford that are either making 75k+ or will average like 35 years old and older. Exactly what age are you supposed to be able to afford a house? Weren't people buying houses back in the 50's at age 20?

  15. Quote Originally Posted by CryingEmo View Post
    It seems like if they caused the problem, then they have to fix it, no?

    Well sure. It was the Democratic policy creating subprime in the first place to help those lower income families with bad credit that caused the problem. Now you will have your taxes raised in the next year so they can fund the nice 300 billion they are going to spend.

    To me that's not a fix....its a ****up on both ends that's will get the average citizen screwed even more. But you won't hear that on NBC....

    You can't win. Either you tax the rest of us for those who can't afford it, or you let those people go under along with the banks which would probably be worse. The seeds of this current dilemma were planted in 1995, Yay government. Yay intervention!
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  16. I agree it's a no win situation either way. Though I am opposed to an outright bailout for my own situation..some slack would be nice. As long as I can up my rates to cover the costs, things will be ok..but if the economy slows much more then wage increases will not be on the table nor will contracts be readily available.

    It's not that I did not know the risks of getting into a bigger mort while starting up 2 different business and having a child...but I and most people couldn't foresee things like a slowing economy, higher fuel and food prices and an extreme tightening of the credit industry to the point where refi-ing into something more reasonable is not even a possibility nor is selling at the moment.

    I plan to tough it out the best I can. Necessity is the mother of all invention.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Well sure. It was the Democratic policy creating subprime in the first place to help those lower income families with bad credit that caused the problem. Now you will have your taxes raised in the next year so they can fund the nice 300 billion they are going to spend.

    To me that's not a fix....its a ****up on both ends that's will get the average citizen screwed even more. But you won't hear that on NBC....

    You can't win. Either you tax the rest of us for those who can't afford it, or you let those people go under along with the banks which would probably be worse. The seeds of this current dilemma were planted in 1995, Yay government. Yay intervention!
    while you are correct, it was not this cut and dry unfortunatley. What ended up happening was that people who could not get approved in many instances went to their state attorney generals, who then put pressure on companies. I saw this for years in NY. In fact, many people would then get approved, default and go to f/c. What made it worse was giving loans to 80 year old couples, who lived on SS. You couldnt turn them down b/c they claimed age discrimination, regardless of what the records showed about income verification etc... It is a ridiculously flawed system.

    It really was not a "party" issue, it was a greed issue

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    while you are correct, it was not this cut and dry unfortunatley. What ended up happening was that people who could not get approved in many instances went to their state attorney generals, who then put pressure on companies. I saw this for years in NY. In fact, many people would then get approved, default and go to f/c. What made it worse was giving loans to 80 year old couples, who lived on SS. You couldnt turn them down b/c they claimed age discrimination, regardless of what the records showed about income verification etc... It is a ridiculously flawed system.

    It really was not a "party" issue, it was a greed issue

    To me, it is that cut and dry. Without the CRA or the amendments passed in 95 the problem you describe would never have happened.

    "Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they donít comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

    Consequently, banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans. In order to compensate themselves for the added risk of extending these loans, many lenders have increased the lending fees associated with mortgage loans. This is simply an indirect way of doing what banks always do Ė and what they must do to remain solvent: charging effectively higher rates of interest on riskier loans.

    But this is discriminatory, complained the "community organizations." Thus, if one browses the ACORN web site, one can read of their boasts of having "predatory lending laws" passed in numerous states which outlaw such fees, prohibiting banks from protecting themselves from the added risk involved in making forced loans to "subprime" borrowers.

    These are price control laws, and price controls always cause shortages. Normally, banks would respond to such laws by extending fewer riskier loans. But in this case the banks are forced to continue making the marginal loans by their bureaucratic masters at the Fed and the other three federal bureaucracies mentioned above. So-called predatory lending laws therefore force the banks to "eat" the losses. This is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the bankruptcy of dozens of mortgage lenders over the past year."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    To me, it is that cut and dry. Without the CRA or the amendments passed in 95 the problem you describe would never have happened.

    "Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they donít comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

    Consequently, banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans. In order to compensate themselves for the added risk of extending these loans, many lenders have increased the lending fees associated with mortgage loans. This is simply an indirect way of doing what banks always do Ė and what they must do to remain solvent: charging effectively higher rates of interest on riskier loans.

    But this is discriminatory, complained the "community organizations." Thus, if one browses the ACORN web site, one can read of their boasts of having "predatory lending laws" passed in numerous states which outlaw such fees, prohibiting banks from protecting themselves from the added risk involved in making forced loans to "subprime" borrowers.

    These are price control laws, and price controls always cause shortages. Normally, banks would respond to such laws by extending fewer riskier loans. But in this case the banks are forced to continue making the marginal loans by their bureaucratic masters at the Fed and the other three federal bureaucracies mentioned above. So-called predatory lending laws therefore force the banks to "eat" the losses. This is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the bankruptcy of dozens of mortgage lenders over the past year."
    here is what I am getting at, I agree 100% that this was faulty in its origin, however, while it comes about in 95, in the last 13 years, both repubs and dem congresses alike could have done something about it knowing the problems that had arisen. However, both parties were getting their pockets lined so it was worth it for them

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    here is what I am getting at, I agree 100% that this was faulty in its origin, however, while it comes about in 95, in the last 13 years, both repubs and dem congresses alike could have done something about it knowing the problems that had arisen. However, both parties were getting their pockets lined so it was worth it for them

    Agreed. I honestly believe there isn't much of a difference between the two parties. Bobo is certainly informed on the situation though.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    here is what I am getting at, I agree 100% that this was faulty in its origin, however, while it comes about in 95, in the last 13 years, both repubs and dem congresses alike could have done something about it knowing the problems that had arisen. However, both parties were getting their pockets lined so it was worth it for them

    Yes but these things don't exactly show their true colors until its too late. Plus, you can't really do something about it when faced with litigation (from ACORN and similar groups) for going back on a law you created in the first place.

    As with most things, once you find out, the damage is done.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by CryingEmo View Post
    The thing is, the only deal I was offered was an ARM. Someone my age will not get approved for a 30 year fixed with an affordable monthly payment. The only people that can realistically afford that are either making 75k+ or will average like 35 years old and older. Exactly what age are you supposed to be able to afford a house? Weren't people buying houses back in the 50's at age 20?
    Maybe, but they also weren't leasing a euro car, having a cellphone bill, designer sunglasses, drinking lattes at starbucks, etc. They had no other debts, not a car loan or store credit cards.

    if someone your age can't get approved for a 30 year fixed that is affordable, then likely its because you are trying to buy more house than you really can afford and/or not putting down a large enough down payment. Your age doesn't factor into the equation, just your credit history and other debts.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Yes but these things don't exactly show their true colors until its too late. Plus, you can't really do something about it when faced with litigation (from ACORN and similar groups) for going back on a law you created in the first place.

    As with most things, once you find out, the damage is done.
    I can tell you I have first hand knowledge of ACORN and their role in everything. I hated dealing with them, there were a pain in the a$$.

    I dont disagree, but going along with this out of fear makes them just as complicit in it IMO

  24. I still don't understand where the idea of a right to 'affordable' housing came from. EJL is right, luxuries have now become part of everyday life rather than, um, a luxury. It is sad to see families being forclosed on. It is frustrating to see them forclosed on and being interviewed as they move out their plasma tv and multiple video game units.
    My name is worth a lot to me. I won't sign something I can't back up. Seems like that concept is going by the wayside.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Maybe, but they also weren't leasing a euro car, having a cellphone bill, designer sunglasses, drinking lattes at starbucks, etc. They had no other debts, not a car loan or store credit cards.

    if someone your age can't get approved for a 30 year fixed that is affordable, then likely its because you are trying to buy more house than you really can afford and/or not putting down a large enough down payment. Your age doesn't factor into the equation, just your credit history and other debts.
    and of course your income. What most companies are doing right now is increasing what is needed for downpayment. Most places now are not looking for any less than 20-25%. When I bought my first house in 2000, we got in for 5% down.

    With the increase in down payment the market will slowdown, as most people do not have that kinda of cash, which will in turn make the housing market go lower, and those of us sitting in homes now will watch our equity slowly wilt away.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-04-2015, 03:36 PM
  2. Give Away Stack Ideas? Let's here em!
    By warbird01 in forum Serious Nutrition Solutions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 11:20 PM
  3. Now heres an idea...
    By EasyEJL in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 06:00 PM
  4. I'm an idiot. Someone help me out here
    By DmitryWI in forum General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2004, 10:27 AM
  5. I have an idea
    By Blindfaith in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-15-2002, 08:52 PM
Log in
Log in