Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: dr_jeff on 29 Mar 2010 12:32 Obveeus wrote: > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote: >> I don't think it is ethically or financially wrong to help those who >> swindled by the banks (I mean the people who got mortgages that they could >> not afford or were lied to - some people report that the agreed to a fixed >> rate mortgage only to get a variable rate mortgage). > > You seem to be the one falling for a lie. People know exactly how much they > paid for their previous mortgage or for their rent. they know exactly how > much they were saving (or not saving) before. So, when they sign on for an > even bigger mortgage, they knew full wel that it was beyond their means. So did the mortgage broker. The mortgage brokers told them that they could refi again in a few years. Sometimes the mortgage brokers told them that their ARM was a fixed-rate mortgage. They didn't give the people a chance to look at the paperwork before signing it, or the required time to back out of the contract. > The problem is that most people practice the 'fantasy mentality' where they > 'promise to eat out less, promise to buy fewer new clothes, promise to work > more hours, etc... once they get the new mortgage. The consumers were lying > to themselves. The problem was that people were taking advantage of other people. > As for the 'bait and switch' of fixed rate vs. adjustable rate...well, what > those people really heard was 'the rate stays fixed for the first two years > and then, if you do as you claim you will do and work towards establishing a > better credit score) you can refinance to a fixed rate loan. Perhaps in some cases. In other cases, the only thing said was "fixed rate mortgage." > Few/none of > those people really failed to undetrstand that their loans would go up > (heck, even fixed rate loans go up nearly every year because taxes and > insurance go up with the home's rising value). To understand this, they have to be told this. They weren't. > The point was that they > didn't care if the adjustable rate was coming (who cares about the 'distant' > future) because they all felt that their own incomes would go up (doesn't > everyone hope for that), that their would be able to improve their credit > (lied to themselves about what kind of person they were), that they would be > able to refinance (a lie that worked for nearly everyone for a couple > decades), or that they would be selling this home and moving on to a > different one in a few years anyway (starter home mentality). So they were lied to or misled. >>> But at least now you are seeing why bailouts are bad. And any toxic >>> government, company or individual in over their head with debt is >>> eventually going to get washed out before a real recovery can occur. >> It depends on why they got underwater. Some people just bought at the top >> of the market and then lost their jobs, got sick or something. > > True. Some people really got shafted by timing, especially in places like > Nevada, Florida, and Arizona. Still, the other half of that is that the > 'intelligent' people (those that chose not to buy beyond their means) that > were being priced out of the home ownership market in those areas now have > their pick of affordable homes. > >> However, people who were buying a $500,000 on $20,000 a year need to find >> cheaper housing. > > Yep. The root of the problem was/is people buying beyond their means. Not > bad government, not bad banks, just bad consumers. And, despite what some > people her ebelieve, the vast majority of those consumers were not lower > income families. That's the bottom line. That not only applies to houses, but it also applies to cars, clothes, computers, big-screen TVs and vacations. The main reason that the amount of money consumers owe went down in the last year is because of all the right-offs. >>> In the mean time, government is just pissing away wealth at a record >>> pace. >>> >>> Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and now Ally ... debt for losers on the taxpayer. >> Actually, the US gov't is getting back a lot of bailout money. Seems that >> a lot of banks don't want the US Gov't to own them. > > The news mentioned something this morning about Citibank stock being sold > off (recouped) over the rest of this year. All of the money won't get > recovered GM/GMAC will always be a real loss for the government/taxpayer, > but a significant portion of it will. > > Side note: Bank of America recently expanded their program to simply reduce > the amount of money that people owe on their home mortgage. Owe $200,000 on > a home that is currently only worth $150,000? Well, fine, the bank will > give you a magic gift for your fiscal irresponsibility and reduce the amount > you owe to $150,000. I hate this plan as it only promotes a return to > irresponsible borrowing by the consumer. If the consumer doesn't get 'hurt' > when they spend beyond their means, how will they ever learn? At the very > least, these reductions in the mortgage amount due should be modified so > that the bank itself takes an ownership share (non-voting share if you will) > in the home and that the bank will get a share of any equity/profit that > exists when the home is eventually sold. I agree
From: dr_jeff on 29 Mar 2010 12:37 Obveeus wrote: > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:moidnc4hSotLOC3WnZ2dnUVZ_o8AAAAA(a)giganews.com... >> Obveeus wrote: >>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote: >>>> While that is true, it's time to start judging Obama based on what he >>>> has accomplished. The Cash for Clunkers program did little to help the >>>> environment and made used cars more expensive. >>> Mostly, it was a bailout program designed to hand money to the auto >>> manufacturers...and most significantly to Ford since they made, by far, >>> the most 'clunkers'. >> The money went to the owners of clunkers, not the car makers. > > The Cash for Clunkers program was designed to spur people to buy new > vehicles when they would have otherwise NOT bought at all. The government > 'cash' may have gone to the consumer (wink wink), but the purpose odf the > program was to provide yet another form of bailout to the auto industry. > >> However, Ford makes cars people want to buy, so a lot of people bought >> Fords with their money. > > Ford makes the cars that people most wanted to get rid of. The fact that > many of them went back to Ford and said 'thank you sir, may I have another', > is a really sad commentary on American consumers. The reason why they wanted to get rid of Fords was that the trucks were bigger than what they wanted. > Of course, if you wanted to get rid of an old Toyota you were likely out of > luck since old Toyotas got such good gas mileage that you would have had to > buy an electric/hybrid vehicle in order to see a 'clunkers' qualifying > level of improvement. Not true for the trucks. However, I couldn't get rid of my Contour with the V6 that way. It was too efficient (20 MPG city/30 highway).
From: C. E. White on 29 Mar 2010 12:45 "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:hoqbdu$occ$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:moidnc4hSotLOC3WnZ2dnUVZ_o8AAAAA(a)giganews.com... >> Obveeus wrote: >>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote: >>>> While that is true, it's time to start judging Obama based on >>>> what he has accomplished. The Cash for Clunkers program did >>>> little to help the environment and made used cars more expensive. >>> >>> Mostly, it was a bailout program designed to hand money to the >>> auto manufacturers...and most significantly to Ford since they >>> made, by far, the most 'clunkers'. >> >> The money went to the owners of clunkers, not the car makers. > > The Cash for Clunkers program was designed to spur people to buy new > vehicles when they would have otherwise NOT bought at all. The > government 'cash' may have gone to the consumer (wink wink), but the > purpose odf the program was to provide yet another form of bailout > to the auto industry. > >> However, Ford makes cars people want to buy, so a lot of people >> bought Fords with their money. > > Ford makes the cars that people most wanted to get rid of. The fact > that many of them went back to Ford and said 'thank you sir, may I > have another', is a really sad commentary on American consumers. Most of the Fords that people got rid of were older SUVs. Since during the 90's Ford Explorers were by far the selling SUV is it any surpirse that they were one of the leading vehicles that were traded in? Six of the top ten vehicles traded in were old 12 to 16 year old Explorers. Maybe that is a clue that Fords are pretty reliable. The most pruchased clunker replacement car was a Ford Focus..... http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/ > Of course, if you wanted to get rid of an old Toyota you were likely > out of luck since old Toyotas got such good gas mileage that you > would have had to buy an electric/hybrid vehicle in order to see a > 'clunkers' qualifying level of improvement. If you are trying to claim that there was a set improvement that you had to achieve in order to qualify for the clash for clunkers program, then you are wrong. There wasn't a qualifying level of imporvement. You just had to trade in a vehicle on the list of qualifying clunkers and buy a vehicle on the list of qualifying replacements. The improvement in gas mileage between the two was irrelevant. So older Corollas wouldn't qulaify, but older 4Runners would. The same was true with regards to Focus' and Explorers. The only reason older Toyota trucks weren't on the list of most tradde clunkers is becasue they sold so few in the first place. If every 4Runner sold in 1996 had been traded in as a clunker, they still wouldn't have made the top ten. There jsut weren't enough of them left around to qualify. And of course, given the love some people have for Toyotas, they might have been considered to valuable to trade in as a clunker. A vehicle needed to be on the list AND be worth less than the rebate. I suspect that many owners of 1994 4Runners might believe their vehicles to be worth more than $4500. I doubt many 1994 Explorer owners were so foolish. (for the record, kbb lists a 1994 Explorer with a trade in value of around $700, a 1994 4Runner has a trade in value of a round $1200). Ed
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 12:48 "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message news:4bb0d0b7$0$19650$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... > What color is the sky in YOUR world? Most 25 year old Toyotas are in the > junk yards as rusted hulks LOL Very few of the Cash For Clunkers cars were 25 year old models, though many of the newer Toyota models were not eligible simply because they already got good gas mileage. In the end, 5 of the top 10 most junked cars were FORD, 3 Mopar and 2 Chevy.
From: C. E. White on 29 Mar 2010 12:49
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message news:4bb0d047$0$19702$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... > You are correct, but one the reason was Ford was selling around > 400,000 Explorers, per year for around five years, during the mid > eighties and they had been in service for nearly 20 to 25 years. > The average mileage on them was close to 400,000, no wonder the > owners purchased another Ford! Ford didn't start selling Explorer SUVs until 1990 (1991 Model year). There were no (or at least very very few) Explorer SUVs in service for 20 years when the cash for clunker program started. The most traded in vehicle was a 1996 Ford Explorer. Which still says a lot about how reliable Explorers were and how prolific they were. Ed |