DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Presidental BS conference
Pages:  
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 241, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/20/2009 03:18:37 PM · #201
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by jpochard:

The other thing to realize is that banks will check for assets and ability to pay. Just because you missed a payment or two doesn't automatically qualify you for restructuring of your loan. If the banks see that you CAN pay, but just WON'T pay, they still come down hard.


Correct, but lying about income/assets is even easier when you are saying you make/have less! And the "loan modification consultants" out there can help you with that.


I never understand this attitude. F*ck the people who really need help, because somebody is going to game the system. We wouldn't have a single government program out there if it was a requirement that nobody can unethically benefit from it. While we're at it we should probably shut down the stock market...


Please pay attention. I'm against this plan because most of the people that "need" the help are in the position because of their own greedy choice to get into a home they can't afford, ot they were a greedy investor that failed. As I already stated, put in good checks and balances help the 3 or 4 (exageration for those of you that do not understand) pepel that really do need the help and I'm for it. Or help people short sale rather then foreclose. I'd even be okay if my tax dollars were used to assist short sales!

The scams is just more ammunition for how F'd up this mess is.


So you are suddenly the purveyor of what qualifies as "greedy"? That's such a subjective term. What's greedy? Trying to have your payment as 50% of your income? 40%? 33%? 32%? Losing your job? (that's not happening these days) Taking a paycut? (that's not happening either)

You got any stats on the % of "greedy" people out there? or is this just a hunch?
02/20/2009 03:26:18 PM · #202
Originally posted by LoudDog:

I have the same principal and the same interest rate I started with because I was smart enough to plan my house payments to be affordable to begin with. No one is paying banks to cut my interest rate or principal. How is that not a "discount" for bad decision making?


What does not show up in your equation is the fact that you still have (I assume) a job that generates sufficient income for you to meet your payments. The issue of paramount importance in this instance rests in the fact that interest rates have skyrocketed in the last few years and that a significant number of the population either work less or not at all.

One can plan till the cows come home, but I am convinced that no one anticipated the downturn we are currently experiencing. We can cast aspersions into the wind, but that will not resolve the issue at hand.

Would I trade places with those "lucky schmucks" you suggest are getting a "free ride".... NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

Ray
02/20/2009 03:26:29 PM · #203
This is a reasonable explanation on the details of the plan. The author doesn't like it for a few reasons, but it sounds like, to him, it doesn't do ENOUGH (which I disagree with, we don't need to save EVERYBODY, just enough to stabilize the market).
02/20/2009 03:40:41 PM · #204
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You got any stats on the % of "greedy" people out there? or is this just a hunch?

I'm still thinking about 52,000 US citizens with secret bank accounts in Switzerland ... and how many are teachers, plumbers, firefighters, or sales clerks ...
02/20/2009 03:46:26 PM · #205
On the issue of "greed", it might make sense to use proper terminology: an "investor", more or less by definition, is a positive contributor. A "greedy investor" is a "speculator", a much more useful term for this discussion. It can be argued that the biigest thing wrong with the stock market is that it has turned from a tool for investment to a tool that is abused by speculators.

R.
02/20/2009 03:56:40 PM · #206
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

On the issue of "greed", it might make sense to use proper terminology: an "investor", more or less by definition, is a positive contributor. A "greedy investor" is a "speculator", a much more useful term for this discussion. It can be argued that the biigest thing wrong with the stock market is that it has turned from a tool for investment to a tool that is abused by speculators.

R.

Exactly why I'm so exasperated by "everyone's" continual conflation of "The Dow" with "the economy" or even "the Market" ...

Some time ago I suggested (here, not in Congress) that a graduated captital gains tax structure might solve this problem ... something like items held less than a week would have the gains taxed at 90%, items held less than a month 50%, items held two years or longer 12%, etc..... more or less the same principle as paying higher interest rates on longer term certificates of deposit.

Let these compulsive bettors day traders satisfy their addiction in Atlantic City or Vegas instead of Wall Street for a while, where they can't rig the game out of sight of the regulators.
02/20/2009 03:59:05 PM · #207
OFF TOPIC WARNING

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Does journalism actually require a GED these days?


Just as a total off the wall observation, 30% of graduating high school senior fail part or all of the GED.

On topic (sorta) -- another strategy that is apparently being used now is if the bank starts foreclosure proceedings, the homeowner can ask the bank for original paperwork. Because of the buying/selling/trading of such mortgages, the *original* paperwork is especially difficult to find. As a result, there have been several instances (this was in Florida) where proceedings had to stop until the paperwork could be found. Many times, by the time the stuff is found, and the proceedings can begin, the homeowner has managed to scrape together enough to escape it.
02/20/2009 04:06:22 PM · #208
Originally posted by LoudDog:

This is what I’m talking about:
//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008764830_belletowers20m.html?syndication=rss

Together the couple made $3700/month. They tried to buy a condo where the payments would be $7200 per month!!! And somehow it’s not their fault? How bad do you have to be at math to not realize that this might be a problem? How is this the bank's fault, or the builder? Are you or are you not responsible to determione what you can and can not afford on your own? This is just stupid!

They got busted (and are now trying to blame the builder) but had they not gotten busted Obama would be paying their mortgage with my tax dollars!!!

There are thousands and thousands of cases like this. Not all are as extreme and most didn’t get busted and are sitting in their dream home today. People simply signed up for far more then they could afford. Help them get into houses they can afford, BUT DO NOT PAY FOR THE HOUSE THEY CAN NOT AFFORD FOR THEM!


Just saw this article in the Seattle Times. This is a terrible example. The couple is Russian, have english as a second language, were told "let's just see if you qualify", had the broker falsify their income (apparently unknown to the couple), had the application red flaged because most hairstylists don't make $12,500 a month, had the red flag IGNORED, told them they qualified, had them put down 5% earnest money, had language in the english contract which said the seller could suddenly demand 25% earnest money instead of 5%, had that clause trip, resulting in them losing their earnest money ($75,000).

You think this is the couple's fault? This has real estate scam written all over it. Of course they are ignorant for falling for it, but give the people a little bit of a break. Your take on it is it's all their fault! Show some sympathy for cripe's sake.

Message edited by author 2009-02-20 16:22:28.
02/20/2009 04:42:39 PM · #209
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You think this is the couple's fault? This has real estate scam written all over it. Of course they are ignorant for falling for it, but give the people a little bit of a break. Your take on it is it's all their fault! Show some sympathy for cripe's sake.

Ditto the many buyers who were duped into adjustable rate mortgages that they didn't understand by unscrupulous bankers and mortgage brokers (we've dealt with several of these). As long as they could make the sale, lenders could sell the mortgages to another bank or foreclose and sell the house for a profit with real estate values skyrocketing. Many of the borrowers portrayed as foolish or dishonest were actually victims of greedy lenders offering "advice" on what they could afford. Still more were victims of circumstance, where a lost job or other hardship wiped out their budget. It's likely that people actually trying to live beyond their means only represent a small minority of those in trouble.
02/20/2009 05:30:54 PM · #210
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by jpochard:

The other thing to realize is that banks will check for assets and ability to pay. Just because you missed a payment or two doesn't automatically qualify you for restructuring of your loan. If the banks see that you CAN pay, but just WON'T pay, they still come down hard.


Correct, but lying about income/assets is even easier when you are saying you make/have less! And the "loan modification consultants" out there can help you with that.


I never understand this attitude. F*ck the people who really need help, because somebody is going to game the system. We wouldn't have a single government program out there if it was a requirement that nobody can unethically benefit from it. While we're at it we should probably shut down the stock market...


Please pay attention. I'm against this plan because most of the people that "need" the help are in the position because of their own greedy choice to get into a home they can't afford, ot they were a greedy investor that failed. As I already stated, put in good checks and balances help the 3 or 4 (exageration for those of you that do not understand) pepel that really do need the help and I'm for it. Or help people short sale rather then foreclose. I'd even be okay if my tax dollars were used to assist short sales!

The scams is just more ammunition for how F'd up this mess is.


So you are suddenly the purveyor of what qualifies as "greedy"? That's such a subjective term. What's greedy? Trying to have your payment as 50% of your income? 40%? 33%? 32%? Losing your job? (that's not happening these days) Taking a paycut? (that's not happening either)

You got any stats on the % of "greedy" people out there? or is this just a hunch?


I used a word??? i never claimed to be the purveyor??? Someone that wants and takes more then they can afford is greedy to me? Do you want to argue that too?

I lived in Mesa (where obama announced this) during the run up. I know a lot of those greedy people. They were my neighbors. A beer truck drivers that bought a $650,000 house, several others....
02/20/2009 05:37:52 PM · #211
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You think this is the couple's fault? This has real estate scam written all over it. Of course they are ignorant for falling for it, but give the people a little bit of a break. Your take on it is it's all their fault! Show some sympathy for cripe's sake.

Ditto the many buyers who were duped into adjustable rate mortgages that they didn't understand by unscrupulous bankers and mortgage brokers (we've dealt with several of these). As long as they could make the sale, lenders could sell the mortgages to another bank or foreclose and sell the house for a profit with real estate values skyrocketing. Many of the borrowers portrayed as foolish or dishonest were actually victims of greedy lenders offering "advice" on what they could afford. Still more were victims of circumstance, where a lost job or other hardship wiped out their budget. It's likely that people actually trying to live beyond their means only represent a small minority of those in trouble.


Sorry, if you are not smart enough to understand a mortgage you have no business buying a house. it's not like buying a TV or a car. You actually need to read and understand what you sign. People took it too lightly and got screwed.

That in no way excuses shady lenders, agents or scams and I won't guess or pretend to know more about this case then what is public knowledge. Shame on them, throw them in jail if they did somethign wrong. But if you can not figure out that a $20K pay can't afford a $1.5mil condo you have no business buying a house, none what so ever!
02/20/2009 06:32:52 PM · #212
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Sorry, if you are not smart enough to understand a mortgage you have no business buying a house. it's not like buying a TV or a car. You actually need to read and understand what you sign. People took it too lightly and got screwed.

That in no way excuses shady lenders, agents or scams and I won't guess or pretend to know more about this case then what is public knowledge. Shame on them, throw them in jail if they did somethign wrong. But if you can not figure out that a $20K pay can't afford a $1.5mil condo you have no business buying a house, none what so ever!


You fail to understand the nuance of the scam. Nobody was going to sell them anything. The agent said, "hey, let's just see if you qualify". Low and behold, the bank tells them they do (secondary to fraud on the application)! How hard would it be to convince a few immigrants that this is the way things are in glorious America and, hey, the bank even says you can swing it? Put down som earnest money and let's go for it! I'm guessing there were at least a few questions of "how can this be?" which were deftly deflected with some smooth talk by the wolves. As I said, the people were obviously ignorant, but everybody was telling them "it's a go" (from agent to broker to banker).

My ultimate point is that in your original post you are somehow using this to disparage the Obama mortgage plan. Can you explain that link to me again like I'm a four-year-old?

Message edited by author 2009-02-20 18:33:43.
02/23/2009 10:18:55 AM · #213
What strikes me about this ongoing discussion on housing and what people can afford - is the missing dialogue about what is needed. Why is anyone even in this mess to start with? Why does anyone even have the option of buying more house than they need? Where are the enviornmentalists and why aren't they clamoring to "dis" anyone who would be so inconsiderate to ever buy more house than they need. Don't these homebuyers understand that a larger house uses more natural resources thus requiring more energy and consequently produces more green house gas as a result? Where is the outrage?

How much squarefootage does a person need anyway? 6'x8'? 10'x10'? A family of four could certainly live in a 400 sq ft house and think of all the energy that would be saved. Many peoples around the world live in much less. Obama says we all need to sacrifice - lets start with house size. Then lets outlaw any that are under a certain energy efficiency rating. If you live in an older home (that meets squarefootage needs) then you are responsible to ensure that it is in compliance with the "energy usage act" - at your own expense of course.

A house you can afford based on what your government says you need. Please call your congressman and senator to push for this sensible legislation.
02/23/2009 10:38:49 AM · #214
Originally posted by Flash:

What strikes me about this ongoing discussion on housing and what people can afford - is the missing dialogue about what is needed. Why is anyone even in this mess to start with? Why does anyone even have the option of buying more house than they need? Where are the enviornmentalists and why aren't they clamoring to "dis" anyone who would be so inconsiderate to ever buy more house than they need. Don't these homebuyers understand that a larger house uses more natural resources thus requiring more energy and consequently produces more green house gas as a result? Where is the outrage?

How much squarefootage does a person need anyway? 6'x8'? 10'x10'? A family of four could certainly live in a 400 sq ft house and think of all the energy that would be saved. Many peoples around the world live in much less. Obama says we all need to sacrifice - lets start with house size. Then lets outlaw any that are under a certain energy efficiency rating. If you live in an older home (that meets squarefootage needs) then you are responsible to ensure that it is in compliance with the "energy usage act" - at your own expense of course.

A house you can afford based on what your government says you need. Please call your congressman and senator to push for this sensible legislation.


Who are you to dictate the amount of space someone needs to live in? Be prepared for the increase in psychiatric care if you start on this road. The amount of space one person needs is different that what another needs.

You may be able to live in a 6' x 8' room. Maybe we should just build complexes like prisons. They seem to meet your space requirements.

This is all based on what you propose (tongue in cheek or no).

I'm being facetious (corrected spelling - thanks Ray).

Message edited by author 2009-02-23 12:36:28.
02/23/2009 01:25:30 PM · #215
I bought my house 2 years ago when my now husband and I were partners in a contracting business. We would take over and newly built houses after the drywall guys leave and finish it completely. This included trim, paint, flooring, and cleaning. We did it by ourselves, worked our asses off, produced quality work, and the builders LOVED us. We raked in the dough, felt stupid for paying rent every month, and applied for a loan. Since we were self-employed it was tough to get, but finally settled on a 80/20 high interest double loan. We were hesitant, but our only other option was to keep paying rent. At least we'd be paying towards something.

Well the housing industry plummeted here very fast two years ago. Two of the builders we have kept friendship with have both gone bankrupt or close to it. I got a full-time job at the local university and my husband went on the road swapping out old electric meters for automated ones. I basically work for the insurance and he barely makes our $1200 mortgage payment.

We are not living beyond our means. One of our step-children has to sleep on the couch on weekends.

Anywho, I just found out that I may qualify for the Obama mortgage plan. Nobody is going to buy the house for me, as some people tend to think. The mortgage company is going to get a $1000 incentive to lower my interest rate and hopefully combine the two loans into one. What the hell is wrong with that!! It'll lower our payment with a more normal interest rate, but we will still be paying of the same amount. Then we, along with millions of other homeowner, will be able to make our payments and still afford more than ramen noodles for dinner. Millions of homeowners will have more of their own money to spend thus helping the economy immensely.

If the economy hadn't fell apart, we'd still be paying on our 80/20 with a smile on our face because we could afford it with money left over and we understood that loans such as this came with being self-employed. But the economy went to hell in a handbasket and people are suffering and we need to help them up. I'm probably going to accept this help from the government just as I help locally those who are worse off than me. That's the only way to get out of this mess that the former president made.

Yeah, I'm one of the few in Kentucky that voted for Obama. I also whined a little after the ice storm, but I got to see my tax dollars at work fairly quickly after the storm and that felt really really good.

Message edited by author 2009-02-23 13:26:48.
02/23/2009 01:53:34 PM · #216
Respected (by me, anyway) conservative columnist David Brooks on why, though distasteful, Money For Idiots is still sometimes the necessary course of action.
02/23/2009 02:22:49 PM · #217
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Respected (by me, anyway) conservative columnist David Brooks on why, though distasteful, Money For Idiots is still sometimes the necessary course of action.


Excellent piece of work. He concludes, referring to Obama and his policy makers, with the following:

Originally posted by david brooks:

And they seem to understand the big thing. The nation’s economy is not just the sum of its individuals. It is an interwoven context that we all share. To stabilize that communal landscape, sometimes you have to shower money upon those who have been foolish or self-indulgent. The greedy idiots may be greedy idiots, but they are our countrymen. And at some level, we’re all in this together. If their lives don’t stabilize, then our lives don’t stabilize.


I couldn't agree more.

R.
02/23/2009 03:00:01 PM · #218
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Respected (by me, anyway) conservative columnist David Brooks on why, though distasteful, Money For Idiots is still sometimes the necessary course of action.


My only note on the article was the sentence where here again another writer states that the trouble with the domestic automakers was rooted in decisions from decades ago. Well, if the doemstic automakers current trouble is rooted in decades old decisions, then so is every body elses. You can't claim that this the the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression - and by the way - except for the domestic automakers, whose troubles are their own because they made poor business calculations. That is just crap. The domestics are in trouble for the same reasons as every other business - the economy stinks.

ANYONE choosing an A.R.M. (temporary low interest adjustable rate mortgage) is taking a "known" risk and gambling. Gambling has winners and losers. Most lose. A.R.M. were used by those who could not afford the property they were buying. They were betting on either selling the property shortly for a quick profit or pay raises to accomodate the rising house payments. If they were planning to sell for a quick profit then they were speculators. If they were planning on future pay raises, then they were not very bright. Regardless, If you cannot afford a 30 year fixed mortgage, then maybe you are in over your head. A.R.M.'s are not a long term buying strategy. Anyone with a A.R.M. who defaulted - should be out of luck. Anyone with a 15 or 30 year fixed who was employed, lost their job, and used their savings, then they should be helped.
02/23/2009 03:50:57 PM · #219
Originally posted by Flash:

Anyone with a 15 or 30 year fixed who was employed, lost their job, and used their savings, then they should be helped.

I haven't lost either of my part-time jobs, but my hours have been cut back, and I'm using savings to make up the difference in income to try and stay current -- I have a 15-year/fixed and 30-year/fixed second, with about 50% equity before the downturn in housing prices.
02/23/2009 05:38:50 PM · #220
Originally posted by Flash:

Obama says we all need to sacrifice - lets start with house size. ...

A house you can afford based on what your government says you need. Please call your congressman and senator to push for this sensible legislation.


It amazes me how the republican movement has moved away from deregulation and free marketeering towards totalitarianism. Moderation seems to be giving way to extremism hastened on its way by alarmism, an appeal to base instinct over reason, and totemism of certain individuals.

Message edited by author 2009-02-23 17:40:27.
02/23/2009 06:25:27 PM · #221
Originally posted by Flash:

A.R.M. were used by those who could not afford the property they were buying. They were betting on either selling the property shortly for a quick profit or pay raises to accomodate the rising house payments. If they were planning to sell for a quick profit then they were speculators. If they were planning on future pay raises, then they were not very bright.


Or they assumed the value of their house would increase very quickly and they would refinance to a lower rate before their mortgage reset. For many years this was a sound and rational strategy.

Originally posted by Flash:

Regardless, If you cannot afford a 30 year fixed mortgage, then maybe you are in over your head. A.R.M.'s are not a long term buying strategy.


It depends on the circumstances. When I got a mortgage back in 1989, a 30-year fixed was at something around 11 or 11.5 percent. So I got a variable rate with good terms, anticipating that interest rates would decline, and it worked out very well. Context matters.
02/24/2009 07:08:47 AM · #222
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Flash:

A.R.M. were used by those who could not afford the property they were buying. They were betting on either selling the property shortly for a quick profit or pay raises to accomodate the rising house payments. If they were planning to sell for a quick profit then they were speculators. If they were planning on future pay raises, then they were not very bright.


Or they assumed the value of their house would increase very quickly and they would refinance to a lower rate before their mortgage reset. For many years this was a sound and rational strategy.


Judith - this is/was still a gamble. And gambling has losers. Anyone choosing this option, should have been responsible enough to understand that they MIGHT NOT get the favorable outcome. You did, and that's great - but I'm certain you were prepared for another result. That I think is the difference. Taking a risk and being prepared for either result vs. taking a risk and only being able to afford the very best outcome which is not gauranteed. The latter is what I would call irresponsible.
02/24/2009 07:13:16 AM · #223
Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Flash:

Obama says we all need to sacrifice - lets start with house size. ...

A house you can afford based on what your government says you need. Please call your congressman and senator to push for this sensible legislation.


It amazes me how the republican movement has moved away from deregulation and free marketeering towards totalitarianism. Moderation seems to be giving way to extremism hastened on its way by alarmism, an appeal to base instinct over reason, and totemism of certain individuals.


Matthew Matthew Matthew - what am I to do with you.
1. I do not speak for nor represent the Republican party.
2. Please re-read my post, and answer me if you think for any portion of a second that I am being serious. It is a very intentional characterization of the enviornmentalists argument against vehicle size - just applied to houising. If it is irresponsible to own/drive certain vehilces, then where is all the outrage on excessive size houses and their wasteful misuse of natural resources? Kind of brings a tear to my eye.
02/24/2009 07:51:21 AM · #224
Originally posted by Flash:

Matthew Matthew Matthew - what am I to do with you.

1. I do not speak for nor represent the Republican party.
2. Please re-read my post, and answer me if you think for any portion of a second that I am being serious. It is a very intentional characterization of the environmentalists argument against vehicle size - just applied to housing. If it is irresponsible to own/drive certain vehicles, then where is all the outrage on excessive size houses and their wasteful misuse of natural resources? Kind of brings a tear to my eye.


Well, *I* picked up on the satire, anyway. I would suppose most of us did...

R.
02/24/2009 11:05:55 AM · #225
Originally posted by Flash:

Matthew Matthew Matthew - what am I to do with you.

1. I do not speak for nor represent the Republican party.
2. Please re-read my post, and answer me if you think for any portion of a second that I am being serious. It is a very intentional characterization of the environmentalists argument against vehicle size - just applied to housing. If it is irresponsible to own/drive certain vehicles, then where is all the outrage on excessive size houses and their wasteful misuse of natural resources? Kind of brings a tear to my eye.


I realised that you were being satirical. I had intended to use it to make a serious point - not to treat it as a serious proposition (but intonation can be difficult in text).

There does appear to be a movement in US republican thinking away from liberal policies (by which I mean freedom from interference by the state) towards totalitarianism under the auspices of right-wing leadership. Here is an interesting article on the subject.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:10:39 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:10:39 PM EDT.