Politics – Foreclosure package approved yesterday, despite presidential veto threat.
He will veto it because he doesn't give a damn about the average citizen!!
He will veto it because it is the right thing to do. The "average" citizen either rents or is making his or her monthly mortgage payments.
Really? Then I guess 10s of MILLIONS of homeowners that are suffering from the sub-prime mortgage fiasco are "not" the norm?
Also, millions of RENTERS are being evicted because of rental property that was also being financed via sub-prime mortgages that have now bankrupted those property owners.
Your compassion is really underwhelming ...
nonsense
Pure nonsense. Whose fault is it that those homeowners bought more house than they could afford? Whose fault is it that they obtained ARM or interest only loans? The tax payers? The president? NO! It is their fault for being stupid!
Hey tanlang:
Just a thought.
Would it be fair to say that anyone that has to borrow money for a home is buying more house than he can afford?
No. I don't think it would. I can afford to pay my next three months house payments out of one paycheck without it keeping me from paying my other bills. I also have a savings account and no credit card debt even though I have cards with $25,000 limits. Also, I could have bought more house and been ok. I just figured that 1200 square feet was enough for a single man.
I am glad for you that you did not get ripped off.
If you are paid weekly you are doing very well.
My house was $35 K but then I refinanced to $95 K to settle up with the IRS.
Never had a credit card.
I struck out young into the workforce and did pretty well for a while until the rules caught up with me.
It would be valid for you to ask why I am a liberal when it was the government that took me down.
Such is life.
As IanFraigun noted below ...
The lenders are to blame because the lenders fraudulently loaned money to someone they knew would never be able to pay. Had those people not purchased what they could not afford, but the lender said they could afford, maybe now they might have had a legitimate chance at a standard loan.
Predatory lending is a crime.
When the lenders do NOT explain the fine print and do not disclose the risks, that is fraud.
The tax payers are paying for the bailout of Bear Sterns and other financial institutions, but the same help is NOT allowed for millions of average citizens?
THAT is shameful and also nonsense.
"Also, millions of RENTERS are being evicted because of rental property that was also being financed via sub-prime mortgages that have now bankrupted those property owners."
--It's all their fault, bubba. These renters should've have run credit and background checks on the homeowners, demanded three different references, and made them agree to submit to monthly drug testing before they signed their leases. Don't you know anything about personal responsibility?!!! ;-x
VETO IT. Let the people pay for their own mistakes. BTW only 2% of the family part of it are losing their homes. The rest is flippers and speculators. Why do I have to pay for their greed?
I bet lots of the homes are vacation homes or ones being "flipped" for a profit. They always can rent and buy later.
I saw some goof on here (ML2007) posted a lie about having a 5-year ARM, which I don't think even exists, and then claimed to have had open heart surgery and needed the bailout to pay his or her mortgage. That's another lie. Homeowners and life insurance policies will cover your mortgage payments if you suffer a tragic illness.
But that's not the first lie I caught that goof telling.
How do you know he was lying? How did you 'prove' it?
You "don't think" a 5-year ARM exists?
Guess what - they DO exist. I guess a 60-second side-trip to Google was to strenuous for you ...
http://www.erate.com/5_year_adjustable_rate_mor...
http://www.forthebestrate.com/Adjustable-Rate-M...
Your assumptions are no surprise since you apparently have no connection to reality.
2% of mortgages translates to TENS OF MILLIONS of homes, libsR.
Do you really think the portion of those mortgages held by speculators amounts to even half?
And by the way, those who may have overextended themselves when paying for too much house were just following the president's advice. Bush's--and McCain's--economic policy amounts to this:
We can spend ourselves into prosperity. Give away money in the form of tax cuts for the rich and "rebates" so we can spend it irresponsibly on unnecessary items. Whatever you do, don't encourage investment and savings--that money doesn't go into the economy, doesn't raise corporate earnings so companies can employ more people (Though of course, corporate officers would continue layoffs while paying themselves immense bonuses and stock incentives rather than create more jobs, in order to "remain competitive"--but that's a whole other issue.)
The 5 year ARM is a valid option and it is not a sub prime loan. The sub prime loans are those designed to fail but only after the originator makes his money selling a loan that he should never have made. Approving loans with no documentation of income, option payment loans where you can actually pay less than the interest, and other such gimmics easily go sour if prices do not continue to spiral upward. Even leveling values kill those kinds of loans.
I blame the lenders more than the purchaser because the lender fraudulently loaned money to someone they knew would never be able to pay. Had those people not purchased what they could not afford, but the lender said they could afford, maybe now they might have had a legitimate chance at a standard loan.
"bet lots of the homes are vacation homes or ones being "flipped" for a profit. They always can rent and buy later. "
It's possible. It should be easy enough to take care of that, though. No person or group who owns more than one home gets any "bailout." Because you can be certain those nasty flippers aren't renting.
diony, right, that is why this bill needs a veto - it does not include screening for flippers.
Please excuse my ignorance.
I think I read somewhere that the rule for FHA insurance stipulated owner occupation.
If I am right that means the infrastructure is in place, and if this bill does not take that into account then I am on the side against it.
I do not like the tax credits for the vultures buying up the forclosed properties either.
I don't mind pulling folks out of the mud if they where tricked as long as they can pay what would be fair for their home.
what kind of tax credits for foreclosed property buyers? I thought you had to buy foreclosed properties for cash.
Totally fair question!
I read somewhere about a $7 G credit for scarfing up someone's home.
Forgive me as I borrow DeadXXXmans elevator music ( a Beatles song I used to love) slow computer here.
Here it is:
"The plan combines large tax breaks for homebuilders and a $7,000 tax credit for people who buy foreclosed properties, as well as $4 billion in grants for communities to buy and fix up abandoned homes."
hilarious,
Five year ARMs DO exist. Many homeowners where led to believe, when they refinanced, that those ARMs weren't going to increase dramatically over that time period. They were wrong. The mortgage companies, like Countrywide, were touting these loans just that way over the last 10 years. And they were using very conservative figures about the the rise or fall of interest rates. But unlike gravity, where everything that goes up must come down, those rate never went down.
You owe everyone here an apology, but especially you owe an apology to ML2007. You don't know anything about what he's gone through.
You're not only stupid, you're dispicable.
I can't for the life of me, a person, going into the largest financial transaction of their life would be so STUPID as not to know what they were signing.
dane,
I've known people that have made mistakes by not having legal representation at their closings because they wanted to save $300 to $500 in fees.
I had a co-worker whose closing went wrong. He bought a house owned by his future next door neighbor. The seller's mortgage holder paid off his current home instead of the the sold home. When my friend got his first mortgage notice it was for both properties. Needless to say he was in deep doodoo. If he had an attorney representing him at closing, the title statement would have been reviewed and the error would have been found. The title company was ultimately responsible and through the good graces of the seller's attorney, the error was reversed. BTW, the seller's attorney didn't charge the buyer anything. The buyer was returned the price of the stamps and charged a different price which netted him just under $150.
the plan is bad..but your generalizations are Marie Antoinette-like..
Congress is incapable of compromise and this bill is too extreme.
There are thousands of innocent people who are suffering as a result of job loss, reduced property values and other expenses that is pressuring them and there are thousands who were just greedy or foolish..but the two extremes cannot be lumped together.
Congress has become a wounded logjam, incapable of separating the two.
ranchhand,
Provide better stats. Your assumption of 2% is grossly understated.
A few weeks ago, I provided stats from reliable financial sources. The average national foreclosure rate is 18%. The speculation amount wasn't there.
with no money down they can walk away - the interest was like paying rent.
klarissa,
Very few loans were made that way and the properties sold that way were very low in price in neighborhoods that were new and primarily condos. Any property bought with less than 20% of value as a down payment is liable to PMI fees, which is another point many first time buyers aren't aware of.
One fact about new condos that many people aren't aware of is that the tax basis initially posted is for the undeveloped land. The following year, when the applicable tax for the structure is included, the note is higher. Also, the maintenance fees in the beginning is also low and will rise like everything else. Very few first time home buyers are aware of these facts and the seller will NEVER give one warning.
If I'm a lender, I would want the buyer to understand what they're buying, especially when the buyer barely qualifies. I wouldn't want to own the property again.
Bush is a hypocrite, along with the Republicans.
The administration bailed out Bear Stearns and other lending institutions in a HEARTBEAT.
You - your tax dollars - are MOST DEFINITELY paying for that!
But, the administration refuses to help the AVERAGE citizens who were fraudulently sold on those sub-prime mortgages and were not given all of the facts and risks to evaluate before the contracts were signed.
Predatory lending in disguise is what those sub-prime mortgages were.
Bush bails out the institutions, the perpetrators of the deception, while he lets tens of millions of Americans go bankrupt and get thrown out of their homes.
The Bush administration cares about NO ONE except their few rich, elite corporate buddies and their OWN pocketbooks.
Disgusting ...
Not a member? Sign-up today!
darwinm701977
abadboys
leeharris1969
popperous
harleyb761960
Bereq
slashup67
finoya
dexlovex2
StoneSpirit
CoolCrazyStuff
DailyContempt
dimplesing
Iris-Iris
DorianaGrey
shawnmartinez1960
alllo
mazafaka
Apinyas
romeohoover1968
alamala
babsonkacey
pyderi
AlphaGnosis
Varadinum
juicey08
AntiNeoCon
TweekerchickQC
NewsLine
schristoforides
urmilskamas
Nowalive
Berhars
dstargel
Mosur
sleepingbeauty2
reportage
misticque3
Macas
riffify
Emmanuel70
raesepis
bloggero
tennisbetsite
kseon
Vacuums
Cattywomen
funkywallpapers
linkintaos
angeliceileen
89)
What an appropriate pic of the Prez you have there.
sure, and you want all of those wealthy investors and real estate agents and second home buyers to use up your money.
Get real, this law needs rules for qualifying.
I agree, klarissa,
This law seems to me to be PURE PORK
PURE PORK packaged as help for the common person SHAME!
I was wondering if anyone could give me a link to what is in this bill?
I look a bit, but if any of y'all have it handy.
He's had the same look on his face for the last 8 years--bedazzled and befuddled. ;-(