Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: Obveeus on 29 Mar 2010 16:50 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > On 29/03/10 10:29 AM, Obveeus wrote: > >> ...and at the time, that was correct. In fact, the banks were counting >> on >> people refinancing every few years. Every refinancing cycle generates >> numbers/income for the bank. > > I was talking to a woman the other day who was telling me that she was in > the process of refinancing her house to get some money out to buy a car, > and she mentioned that she refinances often, the most recent time before > this one being las October (five months ago). She was claiming that it > didn't cost her anything because the lender said that it was a "no cost" > refinance. Clearly she did not understand that closing costs were added > onto the loan balance and that every time she refinanced her loan balance > was going up by around $3000 (unless she had negative points to offset it, > in which case the interest rate would be higher). Unfortunately, there are tons of people just like her that are suplementing their 'income' by living off of their home equity. Lots of those people got a rude awakening over the last couple of years when they found out that they couldn't refinance again and that they actually had to live on their incomes. >> It is absolutely ridiculous that people can go in to get a loan and >> declare >> themselves to have tice the income (or more) than what they claim on tax >> returns...and then the government works to bail them out when they cannot >> afford to make their mortgage payment. > > Well the government is not bailing out the borrower as much as they're > bailing out the lender by trying to keep the borrower from defaulting. True. However, if the government is going to decide that this form of corporate welfare is going to continue (bailing out companies that are 'too big to fail), then the government should take some regulatory steps to help reduce the chances of this kind of welfare being needed in the future. Step #1: every person that is given a home loan should be forced to submit several years of tax returns and the amount of loan that they can qualify for should be based upon that income. one affect will be a reduction in the number of people cheating on their taxes to hide income. Another affect will be to stop people from overextending themselves beyond their means with their mortgage commitment. And yes, I realize that it will mean that people with less than a couple years of income history (just out of school, just in the country, etc...) won't be able to get loans...but that is a good thing as well.
From: Canuck57 on 29 Mar 2010 19:38 On 29/03/2010 1:37 PM, dr_jeff wrote: > Mike Hunter wrote: >> The fact is the majority of the defaulters who were bailed out by BO, >> defaulted AGAIN in one to two years. > > How many defaulters were bailed out by Obama? Mostly banks were bailed > out, not the people who defaulted. Actually not. There are programs to give money to losers and welshers. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Canuck57 on 29 Mar 2010 19:40 On 29/03/2010 2:38 PM, SMS wrote: > On 29/03/10 10:29 AM, Obveeus wrote: > >> ...and at the time, that was correct. In fact, the banks were counting on >> people refinancing every few years. Every refinancing cycle generates >> numbers/income for the bank. > > I was talking to a woman the other day who was telling me that she was > in the process of refinancing her house to get some money out to buy a > car, and she mentioned that she refinances often, the most recent time > before this one being las October (five months ago). She was claiming > that it didn't cost her anything because the lender said that it was a > "no cost" refinance. Clearly she did not understand that closing costs > were added onto the loan balance and that every time she refinanced her > loan balance was going up by around $3000 (unless she had negative > points to offset it, in which case the interest rate would be higher). > >> It is absolutely ridiculous that people can go in to get a loan and >> declare >> themselves to have tice the income (or more) than what they claim on tax >> returns...and then the government works to bail them out when they cannot >> afford to make their mortgage payment. > > Well the government is not bailing out the borrower as much as they're > bailing out the lender by trying to keep the borrower from defaulting. If Obama wanted to solve it, he would pass a debtor law, default and you become a slave until it is paid. Then after a few examples, they will start paying. Many are now playing the poor game to get handouts. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Canuck57 on 29 Mar 2010 20:23 On 29/03/2010 5:47 PM, Conscience wrote: > On 2010-03-29 16:38:31 -0700, Canuck57 <Canuck57(a)nospam.com> said: > >> On 29/03/2010 1:37 PM, dr_jeff wrote: >>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> The fact is the majority of the defaulters who were bailed out by BO, >>>> defaulted AGAIN in one to two years. >>> >>> How many defaulters were bailed out by Obama? Mostly banks were bailed >>> out, not the people who defaulted. >> >> Actually not. There are programs to give money to losers and welshers. > > That's been going on for decades, to the tune of over ten trillion dollars. > > It's called welfare. Agreed. Hard to sell raising taxes by 30% overspend year after year to bailout losers with bad credit ratings and don't pay their bills. Hopefully after this is said and don't some stiff laws and hard nosed for abuse types can re-take control from the debt mongers. Pity we all have to pay for debt, welfare and perpetual abuse. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Bill Putney on 29 Mar 2010 20:24
Obveeus wrote: > ...Unfortunately, even this > simple logic is going to be met with Republican resistance as they falsely > claim that any/all regulation of private enterprise is bad. Much of what you say makes sense. However, I am a little puzzled by that last statement. Have you not seen the youtube video of the way the Republicans were vilified, including the playing of the race card by Democratic leaders (i.e., "this is a lynching of Franklin Raines" - the video doesn't lie)? Can you please speak to that in relation to your statement that Republicans are against proper regulation (in the context of lending institutions)? -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |