JS
Veteran
That's known as socialism, something I am not interested in. With socialism, there's no risk but there's also no reward.
Who are you going to vote for and why?
- Thread starter safety stud
- Start date
That's known as socialism, something I am not interested in. With socialism, there's no risk but there's also no reward.
Can you please explain how having another 1 million (projected) homes foreclosed on helps anything or any one? How do you think that would affect the US economy? If your solution is to let the chips fall where they may, I hardly see that as a solution.
Where I live the home prices are not inflated. Over 10 years I saw a very modest increase in my home value which has been all but erased in the past year. Your logic seems to fall short as well. People being forced out of homes were not the sole cause of home purchases. Homes were being purchased by folks who are just moving, growing up, having kids, transitioning from apt to home ... so yes if homes are not being foreclosed on there still will be people to purchase homes. I imagine the market would become more limited just due to the increased difficulty in obtaining financing but rest assured, there were people buying homes before the foreclosures and those same people could be buying homes afterward. The people who 'qualified' for the variable loans would just have to get a fixed loan and actually buy a more reasonable home.
Where I live the home prices are not inflated. Over 10 years I saw a very modest increase in my home value which has been all but erased in the past year. Your logic seems to fall short as well. People being forced out of homes were not the sole cause of home purchases. Homes were being purchased by folks who are just moving, growing up, having kids, transitioning from apt to home ... so yes if homes are not being foreclosed on there still will be people to purchase homes. I imagine the market would become more limited just due to the increased difficulty in obtaining financing but rest assured, there were people buying homes before the foreclosures and those same people could be buying homes afterward. The people who 'qualified' for the variable loans would just have to get a fixed loan and actually buy a more reasonable home.
that is a very good point, adjusting the terms of the loan so the home owner would still be responsible for the mortgage(with a realistic payment) at the same time it may also protect the investment of surrounding homes by keeping homes occupied and market prices level.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
NxNW,
I've Marked my November/08 calendar....3 times,
11/27.......................Thanksgiving day
11/4.........................Election day :jerry:
11/5.........................The day the Circus Left town ! :mf_boff:
KCFlyer
Veteran
I'm sorry, but I bought a home that has a "realistic payment". It was "realisitic" because it was a 30 year fixed rate loan. No gimmicks. I knew the payment and I knew that the payment would NOT go up at any point in the future. I knew that each payment I made reduced the principal on the loan a little bit. It isn't as big as many of the folks who used 'creative financing" to get a bigger home than what I have. They bought houses using ultra low rate variable rate loans, and in many cases were paying interest only...hoping to offset he negative amortization with an increasing home value. Or they were folks who were stopped just short of putting "Diebold" on their front door and used their home as an ATM to finance things they couldn't otherwise afford.
If you want to give those folks a more "realistic payment" than what I've been paying all these years, then I would appreciate a bit lower payment myself as a kind of "thank you" for not buying more than I could afford, and not burning thru the equity I have in it to buy a lifestyle that was beyond my reach.
I believe that loan modifications or refinancing for some people who can afford new terms and have the ability to make new payments(so the home owner can fulfill their responsibility to pay back that loan) and should attempt to go forward. You dont want a neighborhood full of foreclosed properities because once families are put on the streets eventually the community falls apart, people move and sometimes have to surrender their pets at the shelters and I think if there is a way to prevent this from happening ..why would you take issue with that? everyones situation regarding foreclosure is different, while they all are still responsible ultimately for the mortgage, working with a family regardless probably is necessary at this point with a projected 2 million more foreclosures in the very near future.
KCFlyer
Veteran
While ultimately I don't disagree with you, I think that somehow someway the people who end up getting BIGGER and BETTER homes than someone who lived within their means should have SOME sort of consequence to pay. If that means that an "affordable" payment means that they restructure the loan to pay it over 40 years at the higher rate they have versus 30 years at a lower rate, then do it. Odds are, most of those folks were "how much can you afford per month" buyers to start with. But to "reward" their reckless behaviour just sickens me.
JS
Veteran
My understanding is that the payments will be restructured into a longer loan and that they will pay the amount of the original loan. I would not think that the feds are going to give the people at risk of forcloseure a better deal than what is out there. Although since the feds are involved, who knows.
Hey KC!
What is your beef? I thought you supported a socialistic system of government? Maybe after freedom and a few of his deadbeat followers move into your house or ‘squat’ in your neighborhood you might find a change of heart.
xUT
KCFlyer
Veteran
Hey KC!
What is you beef? I thought you supported a socialistic system of government? Maybe after freedom and a few of his deadbeat followers move into your house or ‘squat’ in your neighborhood you might find a change of heart.
UAL...what I believe is that everybody should have access to decent health care. Call folks without health insurance "deadbeats" if you want, but I don't.
I live in the "reddest" county in one of the "reddest" states in the US. And our foreclosures aren't happening with poor blacks or hispanics who can't afford their $50k mortgage...our foreclosures are happening in neighborhoods that have traditionally had "Bush 04" and currently have "McCain/Palin" signs in the front yards. They heeded the call of a republican administration to "shop"...even with money they didn't have.
They are pretty much college educated and at one point thought of themselves as "savvy investors"...and bought the McMansions that they can no longer afford. They snubbed their noses at those without health care...they could care less about job losses - as long as their investments (many of those investments were purchased with ATM withdrawls from their homes) were doing good. And now they want Uncle Sammy to bail them out because their "investment strategy" backfired. They preach "personal responsibility" in the good times, but they quickly forget their own words when it's their financial ass on the line.
So no, I don't want those folks bailed out...I want their 1.9% interest only 5 year ARM that readjusted to 7% and they can't afford it...and their house won't sell for anything close to what they owe on it to be given the opportunity to KEEP their 7, 8 or 9% mortgage and continue to pay on it for 40 years instead of having Uncle Sam and myself ride to the rescue to force that mean old bank to give them a 4% mortgage for 30 years so they don't lose their house.
Call it socialist if you want... I most likely have more house than I really "need"...but at least I can afford it. These folks that needed 7,000 square feet to raise their 1.3 kids in the lap of luxury, I offer this advice...GET A SECOND JOB!!!! They shouldn't feel too bad....it's the very same advice that THEY gave people who couldn't afford health care.
HighIron,
Well, that is where we are!
Tired of voting 'against' myself and will be throwing away my vote this year for either Yoda or Alfred E. Newman, or maybe Piney Bob
.IMHO, there is 'no one' to vote 'for' or 'against'.
"
Dude, I don't know either. :wacko:
Take Care,
B) xUAL_TECH
JS
Veteran
The difference in payment between 30 years and 40 years, or even 30 years and forever, is not that much.
The problem is a rational bank is not going to loan someone $150,000 at a low interest rate who doesn't have sufficient income or a good credit history. A rational bank would rather dump the $150k into bonds or car loans or something like that.
