Could be.Quote:
which idiots were they I wonder? the idiots who would do it again if they get the chance?
|
Could be.Quote:
which idiots were they I wonder? the idiots who would do it again if they get the chance?
As market conditions improve so does your home value so selling when it's under valued makes little sense, and what many have been doing is refinancing at a lower interest rate, lowering the mortgage but that Obama era programs is ending and I doubt the dufus keeps it going to help more homeowners, nor mandate banks to maintain balances sufficient enough to weather a down turn without a bailout, or any of the things Obama put in place to shield consumers from the bad behavior that leads to recessions and downturns, or at least force THEM to pay for their mistakes. For sure you can't let any industry run amok and police itself.
At least we should learn from mistakes and do better.
How on earth does that help the family that is six months behind on the mortgage and facing repossession? Their equity is gone and their credit rating is going to be tanked. And what of the bank that hold thousands of these upside down mortgages thanks to the stupidity of fed regs? They face failure one way or the other. Wow.Quote:
As market conditions improve so does your home value so selling when it's under valued makes little sense,
You conflate and project as you add stuff in huh? Having an undervallue mortgage doesn't change your mortgage rate and as long as you have a job you pay what you signed for. Of course this applies to just fixed rate traditional 30 year morgages. Even offering a variable rate market driven mortgage should be illegal, because that's plain foolish. That's on the bank and regulators that allowed it. Perfect example of under regulation. All lot of inexperienced buyers fell for that simply because the banks don't tell them of such a pitfall.
Most banks I know foreclose in 90 days so being behind 6 months is uncomprehensible and nobody does that, but in your described scenario, yes consumer get screwed. That happens all the time despite the value of your home which you typically don't have any equity for years any way. I have plenty of friends who have gone through an underwater mortgage and survived just fine as long as the paid every month. None had that variable rate or balloon payment in leu down payment crap though. That's definitely a new added twist because of lax regulations.
Kind of an important point. "As long as you have a job."Quote:
You conflate and project as you add stuff in huh? Having an undervallue mortgage doesn't change your mortgage rate and as long as you have a job you pay what you signed for.
No bank wants to foreclose on a house that they must then sell at a significant loss, and that was the situation back then in many cases. They will grant additional grace to a homeowner rather than do that in the hope that the homeowner might turn things around and catch up. 2007 was such a period of time. It was not a time where they had many options.Quote:
Most banks I know foreclose in 90 days so being behind 6 months is uncomprehensible and nobody does that, but in your described scenario, yes consumer get screwed
Banks have only themselves to blame for things going south, job losses, and the lack of people having viable options, who suffered way more than the banks did. Or maybe you have never had your life interrupted by things beyond your control.
You mean like federal regs requiring mortgages for low income, high risk families? Things like that?Quote:
Or maybe you have never had your life interrupted by things beyond your control.
Show me the federal regulations that require that? You can't because they don't exist and you know it, or else you would have posted them and bolstered your position.
Why are you shilling for banks selling homes that low income, high risk folks couldn't possibly sustain under the banks terms? The banks certainly knew they could not but did it anyway.
You may consider my position bolstered.Quote:
Show me the federal regulations that require that? You can't because they don't exist and you know it, or else you would have posted them and bolstered your position.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...-united-states
"Under Andrew Cuomo in 2000, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the historic federal regulations that raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to buy “from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent — a 19 percent increase.”
I don't know about bolstered, but it was a GREAT link as that it contained many facts despite the anti socialist bent of the author. Such as this report:
https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archiv...eport_full.pdf
I think it bolsters my position so far, but still reading! Thanks dude.Quote:
In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages— that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged, repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives such as synthetic securities...We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the self correcting nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively police themselves. More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition, the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what became a race to the weakest supervisor.
So what part of this supported your position? You had denied that it took place. Very plainly it did. Isn't this exactly what I had been saying?
"Under Andrew Cuomo in 2000, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the historic federal regulations that raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to buy “from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent — a 19 percent increase.”
Ought to look at this as well. https://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today announced new federal regulations that require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages during the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.
This from the pdf linked in your article
Even though it was pushed for moderate and low income families it's becoming increasingly clear our government and regulators drop the ball to ensure banking practice and policy did not work to protect consumers and banks from the consequences of their own largress.Quote:
More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition, the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what became a race to the weakest supervisor.
Obviously financial institutions used regulations from decades ago to not just get around them, but use them for their own purpose. Do you contend there is no safer way for a poor person to have a house? I believe it is, even after the disaster the banks created.
I don't think there is a safe way, generally speaking, for a poor person to own a house. The only "solution" would be to take money from one American and give it to a poor American. I cannot find a justification for doing that. The best solution is to have a vibrant, healthy ecnonomy where anyone who wants a job can get one or even two. We have that now and we need to hold on to it. It is also wildly helpful for people to get married before having children, a position which you consistently shy away from but one which has a great deal of potential for good for poor people.
But when a man has no money for entertainment, the easiest way to have fun is to find a lonely woman and unzip his pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm pretty sure it takes two unzipped pants to tango. You seem to believe that women are just so weak and silly that they cannot control their own bodies. It's like I've said before. I wish everyone would lock their doors, but I have a vested interest in making sure that my doors are locked, so I better make sure I get my own business taken care of first.Quote:
But when a man has no money for entertainment, the easiest way to have fun is to find a lonely woman and unzip his pants.
Are you really suggesting that men try to find lonely women because they don't have enough money to go to the movies??? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.
But he starts it and makes sure she realizes he's bigger and stronger, so resistance is futile.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Movies, video arcades, casinos, restaurants, even McDonald's. Women are free entertainment, fat-free on top of it! And it doesn't take long!Quote:
Are you really suggesting that men try to find lonely women because they don't have enough money to go to the movies??? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.
Did I post this already? --
One woman has sex during 100 days with 100 men but will get pregnant only once. One man has sex with 100 women during 100 days and will get how many women pregnant?
I think your point WG is that a male has to be responsible for HIS actions, and I agree as a guy, but females also play a big role in this also. Neither can claim blame on the other without admitting their own culpability in doing the deed. The need to breed is the most powerful human emotion there is bar none, and that's counting MANY other factors as well.
Doing the right thing for ones self also transcends upbringing, and whatever moral teachings in many cases, even fear of consequences, and no doubt you know this having read the many stories on this forum, as well as your own real experiences with real people.
Oh the answer to the riddle is it's possible all things being equal 100 females can get impregnated.
I totally agree with you, tal. We women can be such desirable teases :D and may not be smiling nine months later. I just didn't want JL to echo Adam, "And the man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, SHE gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' " Gen. 3:12 (KJV)Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I didn't. But I'm glad you finally had the courage to see the obvious. Well done!Quote:
I just didn't want JL to echo Adam, "And the man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, SHE gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' " Gen. 3:12 (KJV)
Yeah. That's how it happens. Right.Quote:
But he starts it and makes sure she realizes he's bigger and stronger, so resistance is futile.
Yep! Blame the woman....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yep again! Or he makes promises he doesn't intend to keep.Quote:
Yeah. That's how it happens. Right.
In this case, absolutely.Quote:
Yep! Blame the woman....
So now you change your tune. At first it was, "Resistance is futile", but now it is about making promises that he doesn't intend to keep, and evidently in your view, women are too stupid to be able to figure out that they are being played.Quote:
Yep again! Or he makes promises he doesn't intend to keep.
It's a very simple equation. Keep your pants on until after the ceremony. Take some initiative and protect your future and the future of your child. Don't follow Wondergirl's line of reasoning. Be strong, use good sense, and don't become a whiner and blame everyone else if you get into poor decision making. Take firm responsibility for your own life and act like your future is important.
And why does Adam have no blame for going along with Eve's disobedience? Makes no sense unless he is a bit of a dufus.
Sounds good(?), but we may have to help when mistakes are made and humans are known for mistakes.Quote:
It's a very simple equation. Keep your pants on until after the ceremony. Take some initiative and protect your future and the future of your child. Don't follow Wondergirl's line of reasoning. Be strong, use good sense, and don't become a whiner and blame everyone else if you get into poor decision making. Take firm responsibility for your own life and act like your future is important.
Pretty much correct.Quote:
And why does Adam have no blame for going along with Eve's disobedience? Makes no sense unless he is a bit of a dufus.
So when you say "we may have to help", are you saying you are prepared to have your taxes raised to do so? Even better, perhaps you are saying that you will give of your own personal finances to help a single mom. That would be a truly admirable gesture.Quote:
Sounds good(?), but we may have to help when mistakes are made and humans are known for mistakes.
Yes. We already help with our taxes, although tRump is slowly stripping away their food, shelter, and schooling. And yes, I'm helping a single mom, a divorced dad who was burned out of his apartment bldg., and a homeless woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So you are to be commended.Quote:
And yes, I'm helping a single mom, a divorced dad who was burned out of his apartment bldg., and a homeless woman
As to our taxes, we are, and have been for years, coming up several hundred billion dollars short every year, so it would be more accurate to say that we are financing much of this with borrowed money. It is only a matter of time before the chickens come home to roost.
OPM obviously, all welfare programs work on the OPM principleQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I posted that tidbit in self defense because you rag on "us liberals" who supposedly expect tax dollars and the government to lend a hand to those in need. There are far more generous LIBERAL people than I who, with their own funds, are also helping others.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I wish I could brag and claim admirable, but try as you may to help, sometimes it just doesn't work out.
Exactly! And the help needed isn't money as much as guidance and empathy and a hug. Especially the hug.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I have nothing but admiration for those who use their own financial resources to help others. I have no admiration for those who want to claim moral superiority because they have so much concern for poor people that they are willing to force someone else to help them.Quote:
I posted that tidbit in self defense because you rag on "us liberals" who supposedly expect tax dollars and the government to lend a hand to those in need. There are far more generous LIBERAL people than I who, with their own funds, are also helping others.
You just dropped a couple of pegs. The guys at the drug rehab center we work with need a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in, and food to eat, so we help out with $$, counseling, and yes, hugs. I struggle with those who are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.Quote:
Exactly! And the help needed isn't money as much as guidance and empathy and a hug. Especially the hug.
Tal, if you really want to help there are, no doubt, many organizations near you that help the poor. Go attach yourself to one of them.
You have been hollering for a long time about being FORCED by someone else, but we all know you're NOT in any way forced. That's just your ideology making excuses for what your state policy on welfare is, so assigning that moral superiority label to your repubs who run the state is a perfect distraction so you can have someone to preach own morality while say how wrong THEY are for taking your money. I think it hilarious the guy who knocks down everybody else's FACTS and EVIDENCE presents none of his own to name the ones forcing you, and why they are wrong. In fact I can almost say the same thing about most things you have posted on many subjects. The good news is you can always start explaining YOUR facts and evidence on things YOU claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Start with exactly who these morally superior people are that FORCE you to help others.
I think that's great to be so involved at that level and I for one know the difficulty of even trying to help people overcome a devastating disease that not only effects them, but their whole family, who are often forgotten, and in need of as much help as the sufferer. Using that as a cudgel for the kindest soul I know though ain't my idea of fair or even warranted and that's pretty offensive of you. Now before we compare what you did to what I do to the dufus constantly let me remind you that it's not badmouthing if it's true, and that's in no way true of my friend.Quote:
You just dropped a couple of pegs. The guys at the drug rehab center we work with need a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in, and food to eat, so we help out with $$, counseling, and yes, hugs.
Go ahead blast away, but explain yourself please as it's hard to believe anyone could force you to do anything my stubborn friend.
Good morning, Tal. It's rainy here and I am sick with a doctor's appointment later today. But it's still good.
Well of course I am. If I don't pay my taxes, they send me to jail. In what way is that not being forced?Quote:
You have been hollering for a long time about being FORCED by someone else, but we all know you're NOT in any way forced.
I have said that I admire those who take their finances, or for that matter even their time or their own food, and help the less fortunate. I have NO admiration for those who don't, no matter how loudly they might brag about voting for liberals who want to force, through the payment of taxes, everyone else to do what they do not do on a personal level. That's how you and I differ. Perhaps I am wrong, but you seem to do nothing on a personal level to help the poor, and yet you claim to care for them. I don't get that. If you care for the poor, then get up and go help them. I was taught that my entire life, that we have a responsibility PERSONALLY to help the poor. Your input is greatly needed, and I would imagine you would be quite effective.Quote:
Using that as a cudgel for the kindest soul I know though ain't my idea of fair or even warranted and that's pretty offensive of you.
You pay your taxes like all of us don't you, through payroll deductions, so how is that being forced? Plus you get some of it back through a tax return so how is that being forced? After your huge tax break the dufus gave you are you saying they still force you? Or it wasn't big enough? I just don't get it, as your charity work is tax exempt too. And I fail to see where that superior morality plays a role in the collection of taxes in the first place.
Explain to me why you are not just wrong like I believe you are, about being forced to pay for helping someone else. Heck guy if charities and churches were enough help, we wouldn't need more help would we? I mean what about all those people that churches and charities just don't get to sufficiently? While I think you and people like you would do a better job at helping folks in those towns that lost an industry and their lively hoods during this so called great economy, I don't see all those people who supposedly pay so much in taxes going to those places where help is much needed either, so I ask again what of those people who need help, but can't get it?
Try not paying your income tax and see what happens to you. Then we can have a truly meaningful discussion on how the gov forces people to pay taxes. I have a friend who, twenty or so years ago, decided not to pay his taxes. He barely avoided jail. They began to take so much money from him that he and his family ended up in a ramshackle mobile home just barely getting by. They are still giving him heck over that. Go tell him how we are not forced to pay taxes. Your argument is ridiculous.Quote:
You pay your taxes like all of us don't you, through payroll deductions, so how is that being forced? Plus you get some of it back through a tax return so how is that being forced? After your huge tax break the dufus gave you are you saying they still force you? Or it wasn't big enough?
As to the feds refunding part of what they take by force from us, it is basically them taking your money as an interest free loan and then giving it back to you. And people have become so dense that they really think the feds are doing them a favor by giving back part of what was taken by force of law. Wow. How generous our federal masters are!
I think if your question is genuinely sincere, then your butt would be out there helping. Why aren't you if you are so concerned? That's why all your pleas fall on deaf ears. You care so much for the poor that you are willing to force others to help them. Sorry my friend, but that is not compelling.Quote:
so I ask again what of those people who need help, but can't get it?
At least you're honest in your looney right wing fundamentalist extreme way so I think you have adequately answered my question. THANKS.
That made me laugh. To you, for a person to not help the poor is normal, but for a person to believe that we each have a personal calling to help the poor is looney, right wing, and extreme fundamentalism. I guess we were just raised differently. You are free to believe as you wish, but I'm going to call out your artificial compassion every time you bring it up. I never tire of it.Quote:
your looney right wing fundamentalist extreme way
I don't intend for that to sound mean. I do intend for it to be truthful.
No problems with that JL, I always figured between coffee and donut breaks we would be butting heads as two diametrically opposed people tend to do. Nothing personal just differences. I believe that governments must grow and change with its people and make their needs as much a priority as humanly possible so not just the rich enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The country is big enough for both of us as longs as it works for both of us. I have no problem letting people know what works and what doesn't work for me. Been known to make it work, so no problem there I got no beetch except what the dufus is doing. Doesn't work for me. I can vote for whatever dem goes against him without holding my nose, or FORCE you to pay your fair share of the rent, so we all can have a chance to thrive in this great country.
People over profits is a very simple concept. All things being negotiable!
Didn't Jesus say something about our personal calling is to help the poor?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I should have worded my earlier reply a bit better, so I am reposting it here:
"Exactly! And the help needed IS NOT ONLY money BUT ALSO guidance and empathy and a hug. Especially the hug."
Yes, He did. We are starting to agree here!Quote:
Didn't Jesus say something about our personal calling is to help the poor?
Much better. My congratulations to you.Quote:
"Exactly! And the help needed IS NOT ONLY money BUT ALSO guidance and empathy and a hug. Especially the hug."
What puzzles me JL, is your constant diatribe of your personal commitment to help the least, yet you blast everyone else who doesn't, and the government that does. Seems to me you would be for any one helping the least, even the government, since they seem to do what volunteers and ordinary people cannot. Supplemented and collective efforts for the same goal should be a good thing that crosses political and religious lines, I would think.
I mean you have no problem with the dufus deficit funded tax cuts to the rich, no problem with the dufus charging the government for his golf vacations at his own property, which he does quite often, but balk at giving poor kids milk or a free lunch at school, or shelter? Don't understand that logic.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 PM. |