Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I think this is bullshit - so b/c people got greedy, took on more than they could chew, or were to stupid to investigate all the pros and cons of buying a home, the government has to bail them out?

Your thoughts everyone?

Did you read the fine print on the deal? It's kinda sketchy.

Myself? I don't think government should be involved, let free market sort itself out.

Now, on a personal note, I will admit it is appealing because I want the foreclosure rate to slow down. But that does not mean I support it, it simply means it is appealing to me. Selfishness is always appealing, but it's not what is best for you or others.

It's by the Bush administration what did you expect? :hihi:

For anyone clueless, here are the details, layman style:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/dec2007/db2007126_633122.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

I'm with this guy:

"President Bush's plan may make good politics, but it is terrible economics," said Edward Ketz, an accounting professor at Penn State University. "It punishes those who have acted prudently and rewards bad decisions by homeowners who bought what they could not afford. It gives incentives for future homebuyers to act rashly, because they may believe Washington will rescue them from error and greed."

Hilary thinks the gov should be doing MORE to help people - I have to disagree here.

GO HUCKABEE ;) hehee kidding.

this is bullshit. how dare Bush help struggling families from having to lose their homes!!

A mortgage is a contract between a bank and a private citizen. There is no need for government interference.

don't buy what you can't afford.  don't lend what you don't have.  simple as that.

sandman, what if i was a retard and i bought a new 60 inch TV, a new car, had a swimming pool built in and spent tons on a vegas vacation.  now i'm broke and in over my head. 

should the gov't bail me out b/c i'm a greedy douche?  should we bail out people who are deep in debt on their credit cards?

and what does this bailout say to responsible Americans, those who know to save their money and not blow it all on one thing, those who buy the less expensive car b/c they know they can't afford the really expensive one.

does it suck people might lose their homes - sure.  could it have been prevented.  um, absolutely. 

I think it is bullshit because most people will take out a 30 year fixed because they never want the rate to go up and if those people would have known that this was going to happen, I'm sure they would have taken out the more risky loan with the increasing interest rate because now these people get the advantage of getting that lower rate for a longer and guaranteed period of time. I am not a 30 year yet. I did have a loan like this but my hub works in the financial district and we knew the interest rates were going to go up so we refinanced to get out of the escalating interest rate loan. Why can't people just refinance to get at least the same rate? Or a tad more but at least they get to keep their house.

I feel that there should be some assistance in this case. ?There are exceptions to the sentiment that people should be forced to live with their mistakes. ?

For example, there's government assistance to low-income single mothers raising a child from an unplanned pregnancy. ?Simply because most people are not so cold-hearted to think that a child should starve because of its parents mistakes. ?While obviously not on the same scale, the loss of one's home is still enormously catastrophic. ?And few would suggest that the kids from these families be thrown out on the street because their parents took out a bad loan.

in the example you gave though, the extra cash is for the kid, the kid is a new expense.  and since it was unplanned, then yeah, they 100% probably need assistance just to put food in the childs mouth.

the housing situation is different.  these are people who got houses not through govt assisted programs, but on their own initiatives.  they bit off more than they could chew in the interest of greed or simply wanting more than they could afford.  do i feel bad if people lose their homes, of course.  is it their fault? well, yeah. 

this sets a dangerous precedent for people who are careless/reckless with their money.

Would any of you bail out these assholes?

A family on the Upper West Side of New York has placed an ad in New York magazine pleading for $1 million to buy an apartment so they can stay in their wealthy neighborhood. Gawker spotted the ad and posted it here; it reads:

"WE NEED HELP BUYING AN APARTMENT on the UWS, 3bd 2 bath. YOU are a philanthropic, wealthy person who would not miss a million bucks and would be interested in donating (or even investing) in a highly targeted manner: to my family. WE are a wonderful, hard working middle class family who contributes to our UWS community, is entrenched, happy and desperately wants to remain on the UWS (lest the city lose yet another wonderful family to the burbs). We can afford 600-700K, so you see the predicament. Can you help us??"

should there be welfare? should we help the homeless?

Life sucks and then you get an apartment.

i don't necessarily disagree. but when their problems have a trickle down effect on the economy, and ultimately, the financial situations of other americans, i can understand the government stepping in.

this isn't so much the government bailing out a bunch of morons, it's more the government taking action to help the economy.

     The proposal supposedly was made after meeting with 25 top economists for 90 minutes and then top aides.  No not everyone agreed or had a better plan so this is the one that stuck along with all current economic indicators and employment rates etc..
     We're not privy nor know all that goes on to make these decisions nor would I want to be.


I'm in the agreement that people do get greedy and bite off more than they can chew.  That's including the lenders.??  It's sad but it is what it is.

so why shouldn't anyone do something just as risky in the future?  if it doesn't work out, the government will just bail em' out. 

it sets a dangerous precedent.

the chips should fall where they may. 

I feel no sympathy for the banks on this one.

Well gee golly, I thought you said the economy was great?  ;D

hehe, thats pretty funny.  he got you there dude.

i said the economy is a healthy one overall, and it is hitting major turbulence right now. most notably the subprime issue. some are saying we may hit a recession, some are saying we may be able to avoid it. recent news and studies by the most respected analysts (andersen) have backed what i said.

i thought it would be stating the obvious to say that managing the economy is an ongoing process, but i guess i shouldn't assume anything in these threads.

and i don't think this measure creates a HUGE incentive to fail. the large majority of people will not even qualify for help. and those that do, will still struggle. they still have to make their payments and those payments will still increase at some point.

so the incentive is far less than say welfare or universal health insurance where the government bails you out and creates a guarantee with no doubts that you will be covered if you "fail."   

     One reason for any mortgage bailout, is so that banks would continue to loan money.  The banks were making it harder to get loans after giving them to anyone.  Also american banks tend to want to keep ownership of their business instead of loosing them to other countries through massive stock buys.  Ah who knows?  Why anyone would borrow 100% to 120% on their home and hold no equity is beyond me.  This is also happening in Europe too.  I have a few friends in the banking field who say that the same thing has been happening there.  Keeping up with the Jones, has caused homeowners to over borrow and over spend.  They can't afford to pay the mortgage and to save face, the owner goes to the bank and hands over the deed to the bank but, with an agreement, they continue to pay rent to stay in the building.  I'm sure most banks who gave these jumbo loans also pmi'ed or applied mortgage insurance to people who borrow 95% to 120%.  If not too bad.

Why should they be helped? Should we help people who can't make their car payments as well? Who run up credit cards they can't pay off?

They had a contractual agreement they signed with a lender. I bet if house prices were still zipping up at a 20% rate, they wouldn't be complaining now would they? Give me a break.

A bail out is not needed, more oversight is needed. We had lenders giving out 110% loans to people with poor credit, so they could buy boats and a new Lexus for Mom. When their ARM is twisted, and their home value is now flat or declining, they want help? Shit man, get real.

Right now over 96 percent of notes are performing, that's pretty good. Yea, some banks are eating their shorts, that's why it's called investing. I use ARMs all the time, but I understand that they will jump a few points when the initial period is over. How can anybody claim ignorance? They explain it to you at the closing table every fucking time, and you sign about 50 pieces of paper in the process.

I agree with the distinguised Madam Taint!  Some of these people were thinking with their taints.

hahaha!

Well, ironically, I just got a foreclosure notice, sent to me (a copy), for a lady I sold a house to last Feb. She got one of these nutty loans, and hasn't paid on it since June!

Ah that sucks man.  She assumed the original mortgage and took another out?  If so you've got a rental and have to take out another ARM, I guess.

I said I would carry a second on the house to make the deal work. She satisfied the second, but paid little of the first (90 percent-all sub prime) note. The second was all profit, I no longer owed the bank a thing. I think they included my name in the suit against her, to make sure they are first in line to get the house. They have nothing to worry about, since I no longer have a vested interest in the property and have not for months now. Still scared the shit out of me to see a big lawsuit packet with my name on it. I'm thinking about buying it again..... :hihi:

Yeah man I've had a few packages handed to me with "paper" in them but nothing stuck.  I recently got a friend to sell off some properties just because of the headaches.  I still own 3 props but no worries as of now.  I'm probablly going to get rid of one in early 2008?  I only owe on the one I live in and that's enough as it is.  The others are just taxes and I can handle that for awhile.  Who knows?  I keep telling the wife we're selling but she says no and the kids back her up.  I guess I'm stuck till 2 at least are out of college.  That would be approx 8 years and then 1 more go around.  The pre med is killer.  Hey whatever at least they have the choice of going.  I didn't until I could pay for it myself over several years.  It is what it is though.