Bush: History Will See Him As An Effective President!

[Balloon guy 158]

[Jeepster80125 0]

Person comes in "I want to buy a home I can't afford." Bank "Really? I have a way for you to do that, that coincidentally also leaves me with no real risk. Furthermore, I am required to do this for you by law. Lets get to it." A lot of this went away when Fannie and Freddie tightened up lending standards, which still aren't all that stringent, but it's better. What would you do if you could do a transaction with virtually anybody, make money off that transaction and then someone else would finance all the risk from the transaction no problemo? Well, you would do that transaction as fast as humanly possible. It's really not all that complicated- it's the job of a business to make money within the confines of the rules that are presented, as much fun as it is to villify that's just reality.

My roommate is a bartender who lied on her application for a $206,000 mortgage, 5 year ARM, in 2006. They never verified income, and she never should have qualified. She figured she could sell the house for a profit sometime in those first five years. She recently got fired, and has stopped paying her mortgage. She's okay with the credit hit, and the bank will be reimbursed by TARP and taxpayers like me. Hers is now the 8th house for sale on a 16 house street, and is worth $165,000.It's infuriating.It's similar with health insurance and reform. It's our job to find out how to bend the rules for our clients. For example, there are tons of restrictions for self-employed people to get group insurance, but it's much easier once there are 2 employees. So we have our married, self employed clients pay the spouse minimum wage, 24 hours a week, and then we qualify as a 2 person group which opens the client's options immensely.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

[dapokerbum 0]

My roommate is a bartender who lied on her application for a $206,000 mortgage, 5 year ARM, in 2006. They never verified income, and she never should have qualified. She figured she could sell the house for a profit sometime in those first five years. She recently got fired, and has stopped paying her mortgage. She's okay with the credit hit, and the bank will be reimbursed by TARP and taxpayers like me. Hers is now the 8th house for sale on a 16 house street, and is worth $165,000.It's infuriating.It's similar with health insurance and reform. It's our job to find out how to bend the rules for our clients. For example, there are tons of restrictions for self-employed people to get group insurance, but it's much easier once there are 2 employees. So we have our married, self employed clients pay the spouse minimum wage, 24 hours a week, and then we qualify as a 2 person group which opens the client's options immensely.

At least she is "only" down 46K ... we paid 378, owe 320, and it was appraised at 225.Maybe one day it will be even again and we can look at selling. Other than that we have to wait until the balance matches the appraisal. Because we are responsible people.

[custom36 4]

[Jeepster80125 0]

At least she is "only" down 46K ... we paid 378, owe 320, and it was appraised at 225.Maybe one day it will be even again and we can look at selling. Other than that we have to wait until the balance matches the appraisal. Because we are responsible people.

Except that she has no intention of repaying the money she signed a contract for, it seems like you are, you know, honoring the contract you signed.My transmission went out and I owe more than that cost on the car, so I have to put the balance of my current loan on my new car. I understand this, and I accept it as part of owning a car. I fail to understand how my roommate thinks she can just walk away from her mortgage because she lost her job, the market sucks, and she made a shitty investment decision five years ago. Our family does fix n flips on the weekends. I'm torn, because we get fantastic deals in this shitty economy, but it's more difficult to sell houses in this shitty economy. Our market segment is fine though, we got a full price contract from the first couple who walked through. That graph is pretty good.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I fail to understand how my roommate thinks she can just walk away from her mortgage because she lost her job, the market sucks, and she made a shitty investment decision five years ago.

What do you think the "right" thing for her to do was?Also, what do you mean, you fail to understand how she thinks she can just walk away? Kind of seems like she did just that.

[dapokerbum 0]

What do you think the "right" thing for her to do was?Also, what do you mean, you fail to understand how she thinks she can just walk away? Kind of seems like she did just that.

The right thing would be to find a way to make it work, whatever it is. Maybe move back in with your parents and have a free spot to live, while you rent out the other place and work two shitty jobs to pay it off when the market finally allows you to. There is work out there ... just because it is "below" you doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. America was founded on the idea that hard work pays off ... it seems now everyone wants to get rich quick and if their investment fails then someone else should pay because "it's not their fault". SURPRISE, you took the risk, you have to pay. Why is that so hard for some people to realize?

[Jeepster80125 0]

What do you think the "right" thing for her to do was?Also, what do you mean, you fail to understand how she thinks she can just walk away? Kind of seems like she did just that.

Well, the 'right' thing to do, in my opinion, would be to not lie on a mortgage application. It seems like anyone who isn't looking to take advantage of the system would think enough to not lie about their income. But, she was only looking to make a buck since the market was solid and she didn't have to prove her income. I might have made the same decision that she did, but I'm not in her shoes so I don't know. Honestly, it's more of a liberal/conservative thing, I think. She hates bush, loves obama but can't be bothered to vote. She thinks the government should pay for her health care, including a boob job. She thinks the government should pay for her education, but she gets mad at how high her taxes are. What do you think the 'right' thing to do is?When I say that I fail to understand, it means I don't understand her logic. I can see what she's doing, I don't understand how she sleeps at night. But I'm pretty sure mk's head asplode when he thinks that BG actually believes the tripe he repeats here and in the religion forum. Maybe kinda similar.Do you think it's ethical for people to walk away, knowing they won't ever have to pay that money? Using my example.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

America was founded on the idea that hard work pays off ...

You sure about that?

SURPRISE, you took the risk, you have to pay. Why is that so hard for some people to realize?

She's paying for it with all the money she lost in mortgage payments, wrecked credit, and whatever other consequences are involved.

What do you think the 'right' thing to do is?Do you think it's ethical for people to walk away, knowing they won't ever have to pay that money? Using my example.

First of all, of course it's not ethical to lie on your application.Second of all, I don't really know anything about this industry, but......is it illegal to walk away? It seems to me like she's just making a business decision. Doesn't seem unethical. Is she screwing the mortgage company?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

America was founded on the idea that hard work pays off

I'm pretty sure it was founded on the idea that technological superiority allows you to take land and resources away from weaker nations, states and peoples. Though in fairness genocide and colonization is hard work. Particularly for slaves.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm pretty sure it was founded on the idea that technological superiority allows you to take land and resources away from weaker nations, states and peoples. Though in fairness genocide and colonization is hard work. Particularly for slaves.

Remember that Canada!

[dapokerbum 0]

You sure about that?

Oh JoeyJoJo, you make me laugh sometimes Of course it wasn't. But the direct application of how the government was set up correlated to an idea that if you work hard it will pay off.

She's paying for it with all the money she lost in mortgage payments, wrecked credit, and whatever other consequences are involved.

1) the lost mortgage payments is a bad argument because she would have been paying rent somewhere either way, so that is basically a moot point2) wrecked credit doesn't seem to have the teeth it used to have because there are so many people like her that are walking away3) I too am unsure of other consequencesBut that is not equal to the distress in the market caused by people walking away. If there was no other consequences such as the bank getting stiffed for that 46K (just imagine that x the millions of people walking away), not to mention how it adversely affects the other homes in that area ... I just don't see how the above = her "paying for it"

First of all, of course it's not ethical to lie on your application.Second of all, I don't really know anything about this industry, but......is it illegal to walk away? It seems to me like she's just making a business decision. Doesn't seem unethical. Is she screwing the mortgage company?

So you signing your name on the dotted line promising that you will pay back this loan and then just deciding to walk away because the investment went sour is ethical?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

So you signing your name on the dotted line promising that you will pay back this loan and then just deciding to walk away because the investment went sour is ethical?

I thought she walked away from it because she lost her job and couldn't afford the payments anymore and it wouldn't make any sense to sell since she would still have a debt that she couldn't afford to pay. Is there any amount of hardship that one can endure to make walking away ethical?Renting a house is not a simple process and is not something just anyone can do. And we don't know that she can just take two bad jobs. Don't make this just about this specific person, make it about a hypothetical person. Single mom, no friends or family to fall back on, didn't lie on her application, lost her job...now is it "ethical" for her to walk away?

[dapokerbum 0]

I thought she walked away from it because she lost her job and couldn't afford the payments anymore and it wouldn't make any sense to sell since she would still have a debt that she couldn't afford to pay. Is there any amount of hardship that one can endure to make walking away ethical?Renting a house is not a simple process and is not something just anyone can do. And we don't know that she can just take two bad jobs. Don't make this just about this specific person, make it about a hypothetical person. Single mom, no friends or family to fall back on, didn't lie on her application, lost her job...now is it "ethical" for her to walk away?

Okay. So, in my little worldview walking away is never ethical. So a person bites off more than they chew ... is it now the responsibility of the government to bail that person out? I believe the answer is no. Maybe a solution would be to sell the house, take the balance of the loan after the sale and offer that person a low interest loan on that money when they get another job. That way the person is still paying off THEIR mistake and the bank is going to get back THEIR money that is owed to them, they will just have to write down most of the interest they were going to receive from that money.After all when the governemnt is owed money from past due taxes they can garnish a person's wage 25%, so they could set the same kind of thing for this person.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I don't have time to read this whole thread since I can't get on at work anymore but this is just 3 pages of everybody agreeing that george bush was the best president of the last 50 years right?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I don't have time to read this whole thread since I can't get on at work anymore but this is just 3 pages of everybody agreeing that george bush was the best president of the last 50 years right?

WHAT ABOUT REAGAN YOU SON OF A BITCH! GO BACK TO CUBA WITH THE REST OF THE PINKOS.

[hblask 1]

Winner.

[hblask 1]

Graphs!

OK!

[hblask 1]

Looking to Canada for answers on the mortgage crisisPresident Barack Obama has tried to prop up the housing market by helping people stay in their homes, even though they're still overwhelmed with mortgage debt. This is the latest in a long series of government interventions intended to promote homeownership.But propping up the housing market has only prolonged the housing slump — a depressing fact brought home by the recent dismal home-sales reports.So what to do?Perhaps Obama could learn a lesson from our neighbors to the north. Canada, after all, didn't have a housing bubble. What explains the difference? Contrary to popular belief, a home isn't a good investment for everyone.For decades, the U.S. has actively promoted homeownership through a raft of programs: generous mortgage interest tax breaks, subsidized loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan guarantees, limits on what banks can repossess when a borrower defaults and so on.The result has been an increase in homeownership, true, but it's also convinced far too many people to buy homes who couldn't afford them, helping to unrealistically push up home prices, which inevitably led to the subsequent collapse.Even now, with interest rates near zero, millions continue to struggle to make mortgage payments, making it likely that the number of mortgage defaults will increase when interest rates rise. That means more homes will be offered by individual homeowners and banks with an urgent need to sell, depressing home prices.Contrary to popular belief, a home isn't a good investment for everyone. First of all, it's imprudent for people of limited means to have virtually everything tied up in a single asset such as a home, whose value can go down as well as up. The bills are never-ending. For many, owning a home makes it almost impossible to save money for anything else.And when people get government help to make their mortgage payments, they still have more debt and housing-related expenses than they can handle. In such circumstances, it's almost impossible to save money for the future.Until the affected homes have been transferred to people who can afford the costs and risks of homeownership, those homes will hang over the market and continue depressing prices, as we're seeing now. When the government steps in to keep financially stretched people in their homes, it simply delays inevitable adjustments.What's needed isn't more government involvement to help to prop up homeownership, but less. And if you don't think so, look at what's happened in Canada. More Canadians (68 percent) than Americans (66 percent) own their homes, yet the Canadian government has interfered very little in the private housing market. * Canada doesn't have an income tax deduction for mortgage interest. Nor is there a tax advantage to converting home equity into debt. * In Canada, mortgages aren't issued without verification of employment and income. * Unlike Americans, Canadians cannot walk away from their homes without serious consequences — Canadian mortgages are generally full recourse, which means a bank can attach an individual's other assets and wages/salaries if necessary to pay the deficiency in the event of a mortgage default. * Canada has nothing like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, subsidizing subprime mortgages on a gigantic scale. * Nor has Canada had anything comparable to the U.S. Community Reinvestment Act that promotes political influence over mortgage lending decisions.The principal Canadian intervention in the housing market is to require that people buy mortgage insurance if their down payment is less than 25 percent of the purchase price.As a result of these policies, in Canada people generally buy a home when they can afford it. Canadians tend to have significantly more equity in their homes than Americans do.The Canadian housing market has been remarkable for its long-term stability. Occasional fluctuations have mainly reflected local circumstances, such as the oil-driven housing booms in Calgary and Edmonton, and the waves of Chinese money that have flowed into Vancouver.Obama should end government interference that does much to prolong the housing slump. He should stop trying to prop up the housing market and let inevitable adjustments take place, so we can get through hard times as quickly as possible — enabling a genuine housing recovery to begin.

[strategy 4]

At least she is "only" down 46K ... we paid 378, owe 320, and it was appraised at 225.Maybe one day it will be even again and we can look at selling. Other than that we have to wait until the balance matches the appraisal. Because we are responsible people.

in my view, responsibility doesn't have a place in the discussion. at no point was anyone else concerted about making the responsible decision, so why does it fall to you to stick to a purchase price inflated by their shitty lending practices?if I were in your spot and liked my house/could afford the mortgage, I might stay too.

[Balloon guy 158]

Looking to Canada for answers on the mortgage crisisPresident Barack Obama has tried to prop up the housing market by helping people stay in their homes, even though they're still overwhelmed with mortgage debt. This is the latest in a long series of government interventions intended to promote homeownership.But propping up the housing market has only prolonged the housing slump — a depressing fact brought home by the recent dismal home-sales reports.So what to do?Perhaps Obama could learn a lesson from our neighbors to the north. Canada, after all, didn't have a housing bubble. What explains the difference? Contrary to popular belief, a home isn't a good investment for everyone.For decades, the U.S. has actively promoted homeownership through a raft of programs: generous mortgage interest tax breaks, subsidized loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan guarantees, limits on what banks can repossess when a borrower defaults and so on.The result has been an increase in homeownership, true, but it's also convinced far too many people to buy homes who couldn't afford them, helping to unrealistically push up home prices, which inevitably led to the subsequent collapse.Even now, with interest rates near zero, millions continue to struggle to make mortgage payments, making it likely that the number of mortgage defaults will increase when interest rates rise. That means more homes will be offered by individual homeowners and banks with an urgent need to sell, depressing home prices.Contrary to popular belief, a home isn't a good investment for everyone. First of all, it's imprudent for people of limited means to have virtually everything tied up in a single asset such as a home, whose value can go down as well as up. The bills are never-ending. For many, owning a home makes it almost impossible to save money for anything else.And when people get government help to make their mortgage payments, they still have more debt and housing-related expenses than they can handle. In such circumstances, it's almost impossible to save money for the future.Until the affected homes have been transferred to people who can afford the costs and risks of homeownership, those homes will hang over the market and continue depressing prices, as we're seeing now. When the government steps in to keep financially stretched people in their homes, it simply delays inevitable adjustments.What's needed isn't more government involvement to help to prop up homeownership, but less. And if you don't think so, look at what's happened in Canada. More Canadians (68 percent) than Americans (66 percent) own their homes, yet the Canadian government has interfered very little in the private housing market. * Canada doesn't have an income tax deduction for mortgage interest. Nor is there a tax advantage to converting home equity into debt. * In Canada, mortgages aren't issued without verification of employment and income. * Unlike Americans, Canadians cannot walk away from their homes without serious consequences — Canadian mortgages are generally full recourse, which means a bank can attach an individual's other assets and wages/salaries if necessary to pay the deficiency in the event of a mortgage default. * Canada has nothing like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, subsidizing subprime mortgages on a gigantic scale. * Nor has Canada had anything comparable to the U.S. Community Reinvestment Act that promotes political influence over mortgage lending decisions.The principal Canadian intervention in the housing market is to require that people buy mortgage insurance if their down payment is less than 25 percent of the purchase price.As a result of these policies, in Canada people generally buy a home when they can afford it. Canadians tend to have significantly more equity in their homes than Americans do.The Canadian housing market has been remarkable for its long-term stability. Occasional fluctuations have mainly reflected local circumstances, such as the oil-driven housing booms in Calgary and Edmonton, and the waves of Chinese money that have flowed into Vancouver.Obama should end government interference that does much to prolong the housing slump. He should stop trying to prop up the housing market and let inevitable adjustments take place, so we can get through hard times as quickly as possible — enabling a genuine housing recovery to begin.

This is good news for me, a Canadian couple is trying to sell their house and when they do have stated they will place an offer on the lot I own that is strangling me financially..so Go Canada.

[akoff 0]

This is good news for me, a Canadian couple is trying to sell their house and when they do have stated they will place an offer on the lot I own that is strangling me financially..so Go Canada.

LOL BG cheering on his friends from the north. you need the words for O Canada?

[Jeepster80125 0]

I thought she walked away from it because she lost her job and couldn't afford the payments anymore and it wouldn't make any sense to sell since she would still have a debt that she couldn't afford to pay. Is there any amount of hardship that one can endure to make walking away ethical?Renting a house is not a simple process and is not something just anyone can do. And we don't know that she can just take two bad jobs. Don't make this just about this specific person, make it about a hypothetical person. Single mom, no friends or family to fall back on, didn't lie on her application, lost her job...now is it "ethical" for her to walk away?

I know we've moved on to the hypothetical stupid girl.fwiw, my roommate had a serious b/f five years ago, and never planned on having the house by the time she got ass****ed by the ARM. Her two renters pay her mortgage, so her losing her job wasn't really a huge problem. She's got a fantastic rack, and bitches can bartend fucking anywhere. She's single now, the market sucks, and she definitely can't afford the new mortgage, even though she knowingly signed the contract five years ago. She's most definitely okay with having shitty credit, since she wants to move to florida with mom and dad to go to college. She could refinance if she wanted, but she won't. She could sell the house and take the loss, but she won't. The only way the house will sell is if it lowballs the other half dozen on our street, which she is too proud to do. She knows the bank will get reimbursed it's loss by tarp. She's a savvy bartender so of course she doesn't report her income, and as a result doesn't pay proper taxes. Nice.

[dapokerbum 0]

I know we've moved on to the hypothetical stupid girl.fwiw, my roommate is a proud american

FYP