Who are you going to vote for and why?
- Thread starter safety stud
- Start date
The banks have already loaned $150k to someone who does not have sufficient income and a good credit history. That is why the lenders are in the position they are in and why the home owners are at risk of foreclosure. Now it is a matter of whether or not the banks want to be stuck with a vacant home in a market that they cannot sell with no income on the property or allow the home owner to get a loan with terms that they can live with.
I agree.
the way I look at it is simply a lot of good people got caught up in what a appeared a great opportunity to get their family into a home, the banks need to work with those people(who have a wiliness to pay and would have if the rates did not increase) rework the loans to a more affordable fixed rate considering the individual circumstance, these people are still going to need a place to live regardless.
the way I look at it is simply a lot of good people got caught up in what a appeared a great opportunity to get their family into a home, the banks need to work with those people(who have a wiliness to pay and would have if the rates did not increase) rework the loans to a more affordable fixed rate considering the individual circumstance, these people are still going to need a place to live regardless.
I am not quite sure I agree with the first part. They may have been good people but they were idiots for the most part. Every now and then I get a letter from my credit union telling me I qualify for a $xx,xxx car loan. I know what I make, I know what my expenses are and I know I cannot afford a car loan anywhere near that amount. I work retail now and I see people stuffing $1,500 flat screens into cars that are worth less than the TV. I suspect that far too many of the people in foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure are not innocent victims of job loss but people who were greedy (just like the banks) and wanted to have the American Dream right now and not wait and have to work for it. They got a home that was way too expensive and the only way they could swing it was on a variable or interest only loan. Personally, I feel they should loose their home. Not like they will be homeless as they can still rent. The only reason I do not want them to loose their home is for my own personal self interest. I have no interest in having my home value decrease even more do to no fault of my own.
I do not know jack about the economy but I do not understand why the feds just can't tell the banks that they are not going to get bailed out and they just need to sit down with the home owners and work out a loan that everyone can live with. Extend the damn loan to 40 or 50 years. Have the bank take part ownership in the home so when the prices go back up, the bank can take some of the equity to repay it's losses.
I do not know jack about the economy but I do not understand why the feds just can't tell the banks that they are not going to get bailed out and they just need to sit down with the home owners and work out a loan that everyone can live with. Extend the damn loan to 40 or 50 years. Have the bank take part ownership in the home so when the prices go back up, the bank can take some of the equity to repay it's losses.
I understand what you are implying,
but then its difficult to label everyone who got caught up in the real estate fiasco as idiots.
a bulk of those homes foreclosed are modest single family 3 bedroom/2 bath homes that people were looking to stay in long term to raise their families. because of the way the banks were handing out loans left and right in the booming market, these same people may have been just caught up in a situation and agreed to terms not realizing the full ramifications when the payments doubled. it was a bad decision, but then the banks were freely lending those types of mortgages because those were the ones being resold for profit, while a good number of innocent families by just not being familiar with the process(especially first time buyers) because most people rely on the banks to tell them what to get as a mortgage..being viewed as the experts...but ultimately the buyer is still responsible and those people probably want to keep their homes or stay in them just at a more realistic rate, those are the people the banks need to work with(good people with an intent to pay and can at a fixed rate) thats why I mention they need to look at the circumstances..
the people flipping multiple houses for profit, and those who bought way out of their means well....
777 fixer
Veteran
- Jul 21, 2004
- 4,792
- 912
1. Income re-distribution !
2. Err.........the Republican way of ending the war !
3. Socialized Medicine
4. Teaching Sexual Education to kindergarten childern !
All sounds good............................if you live in Russia !
People forget that presidents are not kings. Let's say Obama takes office and the next day says he is going to socialize medicine. He can't do it. First he would have to go through congress and there's no Republican who would vote for such a plan. And given the divided nature of the Democrats there would not be enough supporters among them to enact it.
< http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/of..._on_sex_ed.html >
As you can see the story about him wanting to teach kindergarten children sex ed is lacking in facts. Both sides are guilty when it comes to stories that either are half truths or just plain false. The story about Palin wanting to ban books was unture.
< http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html >
No, thank goodness Presidents are not kings. Although some sadly believe he is their "Messiah."
and don't be sure he can't do it. . . if the democrats have the numbers they will vote it in.
And some say we arn't going socialist. . .just remember that Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. He said it, it was obviously a slip, but that is what he wants and believes.
KCFlyer
Veteran
Well...it's about time. We've been redistributing wealth upwards for years. That local Walmart that was built to 'creat jobs' was given 20 year tax abatements. If the city isn't getting the money from them...who else can they turn to...Joe Six Pack.
We even have a beneficiary of reverse wealth distribution sitting in the White House. The citizens of Arlington Texas build a beautiful baseball stadium for $192 million of their tax dollars. The ownership of the Texas Rangers at the time (Bush) was able to buy that stadium for $60 million...and keep the profits from the parking fees charged to the citizens who paid to build the parking lot in the first place...and still pay to maintain it.
Shoot...if you're in the airline industry, just look at the wealth that has been redistributed there....wage concessions...benefit concessions...pensions dumped...and BONUS TIME for the execs for a "job well done". Yep...wealth redistribution is not new at all.
delldude
Veteran
KC...shut down the investment options for your rich friends and they stuff their monies into tax shelters and collapse the economy further screwing the six pack dude even more.
Get your guy in and we're toast..I know the economy is bad now..but do you seriously think it can't get any worse?
Carter shot it in the foot...and I personally think big 'O' is Carter lite....
Get your guy in and we're toast..I know the economy is bad now..but do you seriously think it can't get any worse?
Carter shot it in the foot...and I personally think big 'O' is Carter lite....
SharoninSAT
Veteran
I only see them having an effect on the out come if it is a close call as in FL 2004. Such a close count could be affected by a few votes cast for someone other than a Dem/Rep. Unless we abandon the electoral college, independents will not attain office for some time to come IMO.
I thought about throwing away my vote as well but making a statement does not mean didly in this race. It is clearly a 'for' or 'against' vote. If you vote for any other than these 'two' choices then it is a 'for' vote for NoBama.
IMHO
B) xUT
