Who are you going to vote for and why?

[JS]

more order and less law doesnt work in the real world..I do not necessarily feel protecting a tax payers financial investment should be subject to risk..as one should want to protect that investment or *attempt* to try.

That's known as socialism, something I am not interested in. With socialism, there's no risk but there's also no reward.

 

[Dignity]

That's known as socialism, something I am not interested in. With socialism, there's no risk but there's also no reward.

that is not what is implied regarding a broad set of theories, I am referring to protecting financial investments or attempting to correct a problem.

 

[Cosworth]

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.

 

[Dignity]

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.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

OK...we tried RACE baiting. NOW, let's try a Christian Jihad.

"Before McCain spoke, a Christian pastor offered a prayer that seemed to ask for divine intervention on his behalf. "There are millions of people around this world praying to their God -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah (I GUESS OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE CHRISTIAN WORSHIPERS. OR IS THIS ANOTHER THEM AND US PLAY)-- that [McCain's] opponent wins for a variety of reasons," Pastor Arnold Conrad said. "And, Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens."
(Sat.)
The McCain campaign said it did not condone the prayer."

It was the Blacks, then the Radicals, now the "OTHER" Religions...soon it will be the Jews, and then Gays before election day. I guess we can be on the look out for Anti Abortion bombings to start up again.

This with a woman running for VP who has HIDDEN her son's exact birthday because it will indicate that he was conceived OUT OF WEDLOCK. Like Mother like daughter. Along with McCain's morals of a cheating,lying, self absorbed socio- path. Such good MORAL values. Really sickening.

This woman and McCain are really something else.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

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]

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.

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.

 

[Dignity]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Well said!

 

[Cosworth]

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.

 

[UAL_TECH]

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.

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]

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.

xUT

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.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Well I've been registered GOP since I was old enough to do so in '88 ( although I wasn't lock-step GOP in my voting...I'd vote for a conservative Dem over a liberal Rep ). The last 2 elections I've held my nose and voted Bush: He differed enough from other issues his opponent ran on for me to vote for him despite some some major rifts in other issues. ( for the record, I'm a socially conservative..albeit nearly secular...populist/nationalist ) For the 1st time, I'll be voting for a 3rd party candidate, most likely Barr. Both major candidates get a solid "F" grade on issues most important to me ( mostly immigration...the true trojan horse ) and the aforementioned "other issues" I've previously rationalized to less importance are now major sticking points: My "tipping point" finally having been reached. It is appalling to see the renewed and exponentially expanding gusto in which the neocons are assaulting labor ( both union and non ) and middle class. I no longer like the direction the GOP is going....and they're not going to change as long as we hold our nose and vote just because the other candidate is a little worse. Makes no difference to the leadership: A vote is a vote. Fark that!!! They've lost me......

Here's the deal: The McCain/Palin team scares the living shite out of me: He's an irrational hot-headed reactionary ( his "maverick" bit notwithstanding ) that's going to get us into a conflict we can't win ( spread as thin as we already are ) and Palin is just ( IMO ) an inexperienced theocratic religious nutjob. McCain's advisors are the absolute embodiment of a "Who's Who" of plutocratic pricks. Of course the GOP always tended more to that side ( I never liked it before, but figured other issues were more important ) but...well...my tipping point is reached. The whole neo-con movement needs to be torpedoed once and for all...and it'll happen with not getting McSame elected. I do like both their stances on the 2nd amendment ( a big issue with me ) but gun owners rights successfully sustained 8 years of Klinton [sic] assault on same through precedents and local pressure. I've carefully considered this: And am especially encouraged to read about and talk to so many others that feel the same..."it aint just me" as they say. My "tipping point". My actions may result in an Obama presidency, but whereas I think Obama/Biden is not for me ( considering their previous voting records, despite their nouveau populist rhetoric....Clinton minus the sleaze ), I truly have have an absolute dislike/fear of McCain/Palin presidency. Lifelong GOP-er.....How'd that happen?????

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'.

"

Lifelong GOP-er.....How'd that happen?????"

Dude, I don't know either. :wacko:

Take Care,
B) xUAL_TECH

 

[JS]

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.

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.

 

[UAL_TECH]

A rational bank would rather dump the $150k into bonds or car loans or something like that.

Yea, bonds and car loans are pretty much equal financial instruments. :blink: