  Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1660 Registered: 11-2003 |
There is a mayor's convention in Detroit. They interviewed Kwame. 1) That guy is HUGE. Standing on stage with all the others he was 2x as wide and seemingly 2x as tall. 2) He presented himself very well in the 30 seconds to minute or so of interview. A good impression. Finally, mayors want the feds to "do something about the mortgage crisis". How do you feel about this? On one hand, maybe we should to prevent a recession. On the other, is it MY responsibility (or my wallet's) to bail out companies and home owners who got greedy, got in over their heads, and are now reaping what was sewn? Not sure how I feel. A recession will affect me too. Just a question | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3872 Registered: 10-2003 |
I have a question. I got my mortgage before the meltdown, and I took it through a bank. Are banks affected by this as much? Everything seemed pretty strict to me. I told them I did NOT want an A.R.M. off the bat. I had to supply a ton of information, but I got a good rate. I'm just wondering if Banks were a little more cautious with who they gave loans to, as compared to other lenders. | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 159 Registered: 06-2005 |
Citibank has been hemorrhaging billions because of over investment in subprime loans. Not sure about any of the Midwestern banks. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 612 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "mayors want the feds to "do something about the mortgage crisis"." I agree, but not a bail-out. There should be an inquiry and prosecute those responsible for this mess. Some of these mortgages were ridiculously ill-conceived and doomed for failure. This smacks of the whole S&L scam years back. Weren't the Bush's involved in that too? | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2007 |
It may well be that some people/entities should be prosecuted, but that won't solve the mayors' problem. I don't know if it is going to work, but something like the agreement Schwarzenegger got in California to keep interest rates from resetting might help (a bit) if applied nationally. I wouldn't consider that a bailout, but it may well not be enough either. | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 49 Registered: 08-2007 |
I agree with Sstashmoo that the feds should do something. I don't know what but I think something should be done. We can blame the mortgage companies and those home owners who signed ill advised contracts, but what they did lowers the property values of those who did things the right way as well. We all have to pay the price for this fiasco regardless, which isn't fair at all. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1113 Registered: 10-2003 |
Here's what you have the fed DO: Tighten the requirements for loans so that they are not given out to people who cannot repay them. 1) It keeps the banks out of trouble 2) It keeps the borrowers out of trouble The lending requirements used o be entirely tighter and guess what? People owned their homes after 30 years. Easy Fix | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3156 Registered: 06-2004 |
One thing I heard suggested was to have foreclosures be delayed so that the homeowner has more time to find alternative funding, make a sale, etc. I posted this Barney Frank interview in non-D, but it seems no one watched it. He says some of the loans that have the high interest resets also have prepayment penalties (I hadn't even thought of that), and that perhaps certain types of loans should be made illegal. He also mentions possibly having borrowers not be held liable if they are given a loan they obviously couldn't afford to pay. Barney Frank | ||
Granmontrules Member Username: Granmontrules Post Number: 262 Registered: 01-2007 |
I think the FEDs should have some control over lending via regulation. Not all of us are as intelligent as folks on this Forum and people do get taken advantage of by predatory lenders. I heard the mayor on WDET this morning. I thought it was good. I was shocked when he said that Oakland Co. has had 8000 foreclosures. I knew it wasn't just us but that number shocked me. | ||
Miesfan Member Username: Miesfan Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2007 |
I don't believe the mortgage crisis is a mortgage crisis. It's a housing crisis. We've built more homes than the market can support. The subprime mortgage boom was a finger in the dike. Credit was extended to people who had no business purchasing the homes they did. So long as real estate prices rose steadily the day of reckoning was delayed. When unfit homeowners got into trouble they could sell their property and cover their debt more or less. Now we've reached a point where the supply of homes is larger than the demand. Property values have been falling slowly but steadily for the last 12-18 months and the chickens have come home to roost. The illusion of wealth was perceived as actual wealth. It's like the every man version of Enron and there are 100,000 of everyman Andy Fastows in middle America living large on smoke and mirror mortgages. A mortgage bailout might take the edge off in the short term but until Americans are willing to accept that sprawl policies have led to this problem, more accurately a market correction, there won't be a permanent solution. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 917 Registered: 12-2006 |
Answering Johnlodge's question from earlier: Banks nowadays do not actually lend you the money they lend you. Well, they do at first, but they sell the mortgages (bundled) to investors, who then take the risk, and the bank gets fees for the transactions. So the risk is held by the mortgage holders, not the banks; the banks simply perform the function of a collection agent. This is not true for 100% of home loans, but is true in general. If the loan defaults, the bank only loses a little; the investor holding that mortgage among his package is the big loser. Ironically this setup is part of the problem: since the banks make money on fees, and therefore on transaction volume, and somebody else assumes the risk of bad loans, the banks no longer had to be so cautious about lending the money. So long as somebody was willing to buy the mortgage bundles (and somebody always was), the bank did OK lending money to your pet schnauzer. Tom Tomorrow had a great cartoon about this, some time back; if you find it post a link to it here. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3879 Registered: 10-2003 |
Aren't you usually informed of your mortgage being purchased? I still make my mortage payment to my bank. As far as I know, my mortgage agent is still the person to contact regarding my mortgage. I was sent a letter when my original agent retired, and a new one took her place. And as I said, they seemed very strict to me. I needed proof of all money, including my 401k and xeroxed check deposits for any money my family gave me to help me out with the closing fees. I guess I'm looking for an actual scenario of how someone got into a mortgage they couldn't afford, apart from losing their job. I know it is related to ARMs, which I did not get. But why would someone take out a mortgage knowing the payment will go up to something they can't possibly afford? I know there are irresponsible people, but at this scale? Is there more to this? | ||
Granmontrules Member Username: Granmontrules Post Number: 263 Registered: 01-2007 |
I think it is the refinancing that gets people. Predatory lenders are tough. They promise a lot of money to pay off debts etc...then the rates go up and your payments double. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3157 Registered: 06-2004 |
My guess is they either thought they'd be the same or better off in two years but weren't, were told they could easily refinance in two years but then couldn't qualify, were planning to sell but couldn't unload the place, underestimated or just didn't understand the reset, or got caught by surprise by a prepayment penalty. There's probably some straw buyer fraud in there, too. The early payments on those loans were usually very attractive, too, equal to or less than some rent payments I've seen. Remember all those animated internet ads promising hundreds of thousands of dollars for say, $498 a month, just click on your state to find out more? They were everywhere! Not anymore... | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 613 Registered: 02-2007 |
Yep, there mostly gone and it's been rather nice not hearing about "Shoulda gone to Ditech" or "Hi, I'm Andy Hall from Rock financial, call us about our Stiffarm smartloan today" | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10871 Registered: 10-2003 |
I do not want my money or federal money bailing people out for their own stupidity. The sinple fact of the matter is that foreclosures have been a poor/city issue for years. It is only getting attention because it is now hitting wealthier areas. There is talk about legislation to help people in variable or subprime mortgages. That legislation specifically states that it is not to help out people that face issues to sickness, job loss, etc. This is only an issue because it now hits the wealthy areas of the country. If one cent of federal dollars goes to bail out idiots I will be very upset about this. Coumbine part 2. Not an issue unless middle/upper America is hit. | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 50 Registered: 08-2007 |
Jt1, I agree with your sentiment. I still think the feds should do something, although I stop short of a bailout. Reason why I think the feds should get involved is because YOUR property values are going down regardless of whether you had anything to do with this or not. You're going to pay for it one way or the other no matter what! | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5647 Registered: 11-2003 |
Let the buyer beware. Screw the stupid bankers who let fast talking realitors crank out sales to buyers unable to read, write, negotiate, and make sound decisions. Screw the real estate industry, now closing offices faster than that new Mustang they drove in on. jjaba feels no pain for people in the squeeze. They'll recover in a rental in Timbuktu having learned a valuable lesson. Make no mistake about it, the speculators are hurting. That includes big banks, little banks, and all manner of lenders. Some petrolshiekdoms are loaning to the banks, and China is backing other USA banks. Good for them, let them love the stupids too. Note to everybody: live within your means, family budgeting 101. This ain't exactly Rocket Science, eh. In other words, those Mayors on Lou Dobbs are more full of schitt than anybody. Why should anybody who does pay his bills give a rat's ass about your stupids!••• And the line-up of Mayors was amazing, Bowling Green, Ky, Detroit, Flint, Lansing, and Trenton, NJ. jjaba. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 614 Registered: 02-2007 |
Jjaba, I agree. I've been saying for the last ten years, when I'd see someone fresh out of CC get a job at Delphi and buy a $300k house, that Detroit was not always like this. It's been an idiot surge to buy homes and anything else they "could" sign their names for. The point I was making earlier is, sure folks agreed to ridiculous deals as long as it put cash in their pocket. Thats not a hard sell with the unknowing. The folks behind this creative lending aren't stupid. They knew what they were doing. They knew the risks to the economy. And I think they should be held accountable for it. They should be rooted out, indicted of the wrong-doings and their restitutions should be to work out something equitable with the borrowers and investors that were mislead. If that is found to be the case. I seen people getting mortgages that had no credit a few months prior, they'd get a few secured credit cards, make a few payments and bang they had a credit score then get the ridiculous mortgage. These lending institutions knew these credit scores were bogus. It doesn't take an economics major to realize something stinks about it all. Just a guess, but one wouldn't have to dig too deeply to find the skullduggery here. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 919 Registered: 12-2006 |
Johnlodge, Remember, marketing works. For how many years did we hear Andy Jacob and David Hall (and many others) say things like "use the equity in your house to take that dream vacation!"? Lenders would loan against inflated equity, and would front-load the loans (charge fees up front) in exchange for a temporarily low rate and payment. It makes the homeowner's life easier for a year or two. My fave example, recently in one of the Detroit papers, was of a woman who bought a house for $8,000 not too many years ago, refinanced several times (going further into debt each time of course) until she recently lost that $8,000 home to foreclosure owing well over $100,000 on it. So, a variety of lenders were willing to lend her (over time) upwards of $100K on a house that she bought for under $10K. She was, like most people, not particularly financially sophisticated. It's easy to get taken for a ride by people who are more knowledgeable and have less scruples than yourself. I'm not saying she was stupid, not hardly. Just that a typical person, working and trying to make ends meet, trusts banks and bank-like things to be more or less honest, doesn't know a whole lot about sophisticated financial instruments, and is therefore a good mark for a sophisticated con artist; and all these lenders are is sophisticated con artists. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 615 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "A mortgage bailout might take the edge off in the short term but until Americans are willing to accept that sprawl policies have led to this problem," Americans need to learn if they can't afford something, Don't buy it. I'm with Jt1, if they want my tax dollars to fix this, I won't be happy about it. | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 283 Registered: 05-2006 |
Sstashmoo writes: I agree, but not a bail-out. There should be an inquiry and prosecute those responsible for this mess. Some of these mortgages were ridiculously ill-conceived and doomed for failure. This smacks of the whole S&L scam years back. Weren't the Bush's involved in that too? -The S&L bail out at the time was the most expensive scandal in American History, and cost taxpayers in the neighborhood $5K per person in the end. Bush's son Neil actually worked for one of the S&L's involved in the scandal, but like all Bushy's got a pass, and was never held accountable. From Wikipedia: The Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s was a wave of savings and loan association failures in the United States in which over 1,000 savings and loan institutions failed in "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[1] The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. "Neil Bush was director of Silverado Savings and Loan when the institution collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.6 billion. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado with the cooperation of Ken Good, of Good International, although Bush denied all wrongdoing [2] Neil Bush is a brother of President George W. Bush." This new bailout will make the old one look like junior achievement, combined with the Iraq war will be a HUGE tax increase. Get your wallet out..... | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3095 Registered: 11-2003 |
A wise trucker once told me that "Stupidity should be painful". Just where is it written that I should bail out someone (i.e. lender/lendee) for their own incompetence? However, if anything should be done, I'd like to see those lenders responsible for this sub-prime scam to be cooling their heels in jail until the year 3007. Being a realist though, I see the federal government stepping in, bailing out the banks from their own stupidity, providing token "help" for former homeowners, and then sweeping the entire thing under the rug, while sticking me and anyone else who works for a living with the tab. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2260 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Well, back to what you were saying about going to your bank. There is a difference between going to a bank like Chase (or Citibank, or whoever) and going somewhere like Rock Financial. I don't remember the exact details, but they are regulated tougher than these fly-by-night mortgage companies, so they have to be very strict about the loans they grant. Where these big banks got in trouble is that even though they couldn't actually grant the loans themselves, they COULD invest in the securities that funded these loans. It was very lucrative, and not all banks got burned by it (::cough:: Goldman Sachs ::cough:: ). In fact, there was an article in the Financial Times a couple weeks ago about Morgan Stanley predicting this mortgage crisis and hedging against it, yet they took a substantial loss only because they underestimated how big this thing would become. | ||
Fjw718 Member Username: Fjw718 Post Number: 171 Registered: 11-2005 |
He is huge though......he is bigger than the BUS! http://images.usatoday.com/spo rts/nfl/_photos/2006-02-02-in- bettis.jpg | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 285 Registered: 05-2006 |
The bottom line is that there should have been regulation and oversight on the part of the Federal Government. These types of products should have never been offered in the first place, as people don't know what they are getting into, but when the bottom falls out, we always wind up picking up the pieces, irrespective of consumer stupidity. Furthermore these types of loans skewed the market, and artificially increased market values (where average Joe's were buying $400,000, homes, when in reality these values were actually half of that.) Now the inevitable market correction comes, which will have a very adverse effect on the economy. Had these shady mortgage products never been introduced in the first place (offering lenders and builders a "Get Rich Quick" scenario) then home values would have appreciated at a more realistic and manageable pace, and our economy would be in a lot better shape. The Bush policy of lax regulation of businesses in many cases, in the long run, harms business more. (Energy, Enron) Sometimes businesses' own worst enemy is themselves. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 211 Registered: 03-2005 |
There's a good (and frightening) story in the News today about the extent of mortgage fraud - not subprime loans, but straight-up fraud - in Michigan: http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20071128/BIZ01 /711280402 From what this says, the banks are as much victims as the people who lost their homes - although, arguably, banks should have done a better job doing their homework. The predatory lenders are the bad guys, and a lot of them have changed their names and moved to some remote island by now. They got away with a lot because Michigan didn't have the laws or the law enforcement in place to stop it. | ||
Princepoppintang Member Username: Princepoppintang Post Number: 9 Registered: 10-2007 |
I can't fathom the lack of sympathy here for these people that have fallen prey to these monsters in the mortgage industry. I would bet a good number of them have been victims of fraud and not stupidity on their own parts as some of you have clearly expressed in your rude opinions. Peoples lives have been and are being destroyed daily because of this and you make light of it. What needs to be done is prosecution to the fullest extent the law of these greedy animals. How would you feel if someone you trusted screwed you? Possibly forged your name and you lost your home. Have some decency in your opinions on this subject please. A lot of good people and their families have been destroyed by this not only financially but mentally and emotionally also. | ||
Bobj Member Username: Bobj Post Number: 3078 Registered: 11-2003 |
The best thing for homeowners n trouble, lenders, cities, and other local residents is to find a way to keep people in their homes. I have no problem with some sort of small bail out. Think of a community with a lot of foreclosures, all the potential vacant houses, it destroy areas. Those destroyed cities will cost us in lost taxes, crime, blight, etc. It is pay me know or pay me later on this one. Thinking just at the individual level is not appropriate here. (Message edited by bobj on November 28, 2007) | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 388 Registered: 12-2006 |
In all honesty, I have trouble feeling sorry for the people that took all those ARM loans a few years ago. EVERYWHERE you looked people were talking about how mortgage rates were the lowest in history at that time. That was a great time to lock yourself into a FIXED rated. However, anyone dumb enough to take a loan with an adjustable rate deserved what they got. If rates were at historic lows, wouldn't the obvious assumption be that it was more likely that rates would go up rather that go down? no one twisted these people's arms when they signed these mortgages and shame on them for not using a bit of common sense when they decided to take on so much debt. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3159 Registered: 06-2004 |
The problem is much of what was done nationwide was LEGAL. There was minimal, if any, regulation of the non-bank originators and securitizers. Caveat emptor, unfortunately. | ||
Princepoppintang Member Username: Princepoppintang Post Number: 10 Registered: 10-2007 |
Maybe Im different because I could never take advantage of people to make money. I have always made an honest living but thats just me. I made my money honestly and don't have any regret whatsoever. Not even for a dime. I don't go to sleep and ask, Hey? Was 4.95 for that 1/2 pound cheeseburger deluxe w/soda too much? Versus the 9.95 you pay elsewhere. Nope, I have a clear mind and honestly feel I am being fair to anyone and everyone I come in contact with in business. And yes, they should'nt have taken ARM 's, but the way those ARM's were presented in and of itself could be understood as fraud to an extent at least on the lender's part. (Message edited by princepoppintang on November 28, 2007) | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5648 Registered: 11-2003 |
Diehard, thanks for the article. It should be read by everybody. The statements of confession are rotten from top to bottom, from bankers who are in on the take, to the greedy criminals on the outside. Amazing article. jjaba. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 11002 Registered: 12-2003 |
Prince, I might amplify your statement a wee bit...I don't think it is just the way the ARMs were presented that constitutes fraud. The whole land-ownership thing is almost fine (tempered ONLY by my agreement with basic aboriginal thought that nobody can truly own a piece of this round rock that will so obviously outlive us all), but the Mortgage System is merely complicated slavery to that land. The whole American Dream is that fraud. The value of property is manipulated to be 'just' outside the reach of honest people on their own, they MUST partner with (some obviously VERY devious) people with piles of money to lend in order to secure this American dream...paying way MORE than the value of the property in interest over time? Foolishness. The ones who fully understand the time value of money and accumulation of interest, and manipulate the system to appease their greed, are the modern slave drivers. I am specifically NOT talking about those in the meat of the mortgage retail industry...I'm talking about those who hold the wholesale notes. (Take a breath, Kid_dynomite! You're just a soldier in an army taking orders.) My Mathematical Alchemist room-mate has been trying to teach me his simple understanding of time trading as money...and I've argued him on a few points only because I still adhere to the concept that if the Love of Money is the root of all evil then I should HATE money. I say all of this because HE came to a great revelation about HIS views on money...the justification of keeping it to a measure of the value of your time absolutely and completely breaks down when one loans money and charges interest on it. Using money to make money is where the moral justification of the time/money equation falls apart...there is a reason they call it 'usury'. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5651 Registered: 11-2003 |
Gannon, you confuse the hell out of jjaba. So if jjaba has a big bank CD somewhere and you come in and want to borrow from my bank, my money for a business loan, or a mortgage, or a new work truck, that makes jjaba is evil? Wow, explain. If jjaba has extra money, can't he have a bank account out of which the bank might loan it out? jjaba, confused by Gannon. | ||
401don Member Username: 401don Post Number: 90 Registered: 11-2007 |
What bothers me is the whole credit as a way of life thinking is literally being pushed on children. First it was teenagers "needing" cell phones, then it was 10 year olds. Now they are pushing parents to get "spending" cards for their kids with the idea that this will teach them the value of credit. What about earning some money and then buying something to learn the value of money. I remember how hard it was to get a credit card when I was a university grad with one year work experience but no credit record. They started me at $500. for the 1st year. Now they say to get a low interest mastercard to pay off your existing cards. Is it any wonder poorly educated people got into this mess? | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 876 Registered: 09-2007 |
Wow, Baby Boomers just love to complain about today's generation. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 877 Registered: 09-2007 |
and Busters. | ||
401don Member Username: 401don Post Number: 91 Registered: 11-2007 |
No, it's the baby boomers running these companies and pushing this crap down the throats of today's generation that I'm complaining about. (By the way, I majored in Marketing):} | ||
Renfirst Member Username: Renfirst Post Number: 137 Registered: 12-2006 |
Blame Bush... he's de-regulated so many industries in this country... this is what happens when you let a greedy industry do what it wants for 8 years... Greed fosters innovation... if you don't regulate that innovation, you get the problems we have today, such as 2/28 option arms with pre-payment penalties that penalize you for refinancing before you rate adjusts... | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 11021 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jjaba, I've been wrestling with this for quite a while now...so far as I can tell there is NO good that comes out of charging interest. Some of the earliest Jewish writings condemned interest, ESPECIALLY for those unable to repay a loan. Debts were eliminated every seven years, so you gotta know that sixth year collection activity probably got fierce! Property lost for whatever reason was returned to the family tree during the Jubilee years every 50. I think that if that DOESN'T happen, weird and bad things snap back in about a seventy year cycle instead...casually looking at historic trends. WAR happens...huge war. Nah, it seems that to trade your time for money...a MUCH more convenient method than direct trade of services...is OK, but loaning at interest hinders everything it touches, and makes sluggards out of the usury lenders. Loaning without interest, like our Muslim brothers that I know, seems to foster growth and stability in businesses...and creates bonds between those with means and those who need those means. The other? It undermines the foundation of business, whittling away at crucial profits in the early years of a startup...and drives an indelible permanent wedge between those with means and those without. Easy to see with any amortization program how it all but eliminates acquisition of equity until WAY through the repayment schedule. To force a family to pay compounding interest on their basic shelter is abhorrent to me...it all but eliminates the ability to establish true wealth...imagine how much more well-off any land-owner would be IF that interest charged was in THEIR bank account instead?! Sure, it would mean fewer able to purchase property...but that would ALSO all but guarantee WAY lower property values, so more might be able to enter a 'landed' state of being. The current system makes slaves of property owners...it has ALWAYS been the case, but is exacerbated very publicly during this current 'crisis'. It is merely distraction...so what are they trying to keep us from discovering?! | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 17 Registered: 11-2007 |
Interest is the price of money. Except as a favor, there is no reason to loan money without interest, any more than there is a reason for a farmer to give you free food. No interest, no loans. Since loans can be quite useful, that is the good that comes out of interest. Interest may "whittl[e] away at crucial profits", but presumably businesses borrow money because they need it, and think that they will make higher profits because they borrowed. Some businesses might prefer equity financing if they could get it, but lots of owners don't want to share, and they need loans to get capital. And equity investors are not necessarily available. I think most businesspeople would tell you that access to credit is vital to their business--the flip side of credit is interest. Also, if you make your payments, the interest doesn't compound, except if you have a negative-amortization loan. I would be OK with eliminating those. In general, I don't see how having people pay rent because the can't borrow the money to buy a home improves their ability to accumulate wealth. Buying houses that are overpriced or that you can't afford probably isn't a good idea, but without interest a lot of people wouldn't be able to buy houses that they could afford. If society wants to ban some kinds of loans as inappropriate (loan-sharking, 0% down, no-doc, options ARM's, 30% credit cards) that is fine with me, but I would draw the line somewhere that still had a lot of lending going on. | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 57 Registered: 08-2007 |
Looks like Bush ignored this forum's very stern advice not to get involved in the foreclosure debacle. http://www.clickondetroit.com/ money/14782896/detail.html | ||
Philm Member Username: Philm Post Number: 40 Registered: 03-2005 |
For me it all comes down to the simple reality that the conservatives have had their way for over 20 years in removing governmental controls, based on the premise that a free market will always do what is right. (Yet, many conservatives seem to have no problem regulating what I can and can't do in my own bedroom) Reagan called it "getting government off our banks" We now know what a disaster that is. The solution, going forward is simple: do not continue to put Republicans in office. The damage is so deep at this point, we are decades from sensibility. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5683 Registered: 11-2003 |
Gannon, 11021 is a classic, well informed post. Thanks. jjaba would argue that having a bank account and not asking anybody for nuthin', has never made jjaba nor family a bunch of lazies. People who loan shark on the backs of the downtrodden are right up there with the worst in human nature. Credit card banks are also incredibly evil. Rates of 24% amaze anybody. Never ever borrow money on a depreciating asset, or in the case of credit cards for meals, airline tkts., rental cars, and entertainment, no asset at all. Borrowing on appreciating assets makes some sense but only if the asset is quality such as a business or real property which can inflate in value over time. jjaba. | ||
Mrsjdaniels Member Username: Mrsjdaniels Post Number: 305 Registered: 08-2005 |
I am kinda pissed too...hubby and I pay our mortgage on time all the time...and now that I technically qualify for this relief system, it was starting to upset me thinking that my neighbor would get their mortgage reworked if they were 30 days or more late...makes me not want to pay also |
