wall street bonuses to be paid out of bailout money

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/16/2008 7:53:49 PM
Author: tradergirl
Karl: you''ll find this amusing


http://clusterstock.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/wall-street-explained-2-

That is way to close to the truth to be funny.

 

[tradergirl]

Well, if that makes you sick, try this for a warped sense of humor.

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=461

as if any former Lehman people would even be thinking about buying something like that. Killer bracelet though.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/16/2008 9:50:28 PM
Author: tradergirl
Well, if that makes you sick, try this for a warped sense of humor.


http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=461


as if any former Lehman people would even be thinking about buying something like that. Killer bracelet though.

Rofl!!
I hope the discount is raising the price to $200k

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/16/2008 4:16:23 PM
Author: stone_seeker



I think your post is a load of crap, with all due respect. Name me one company that has a product that can produce it without money. If wall street had no value, then its collapse should not have the impact its having now. Wall Street didnt force the guy making $15K a year to buy a million dollar home. Congress (democratic leadership) wanted wall street to loosen lending standards and wall street foolishly complied. They profited from it, but they were doing fine before subprime loans started being made.

The term predatory lending is such BS. I got offered hundreds of these no-money down, get paid to buy a home type of deals. Yes, they were enticing and I would have loved to buy a mansion with one - but I said NO. Blaming wall street for the stupidity and greed of a select few is a cop out. But I guess its easier to blame the ''evil money stealers'' on wall street than look in the mirror.

yup,agree 101%

 

[Beacon]

Looks like Goldman Sachs just posted that their top level execs will not be taking a bonus this year. Sounds like they are doing the smart thing here.

Plus they also made a deal with Warren Buffet that they would not sell their personal shares in the company til they pay Warren off. That was part of his original deal with them, so not news, I''m just mentioning it.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 11/16/2008 7:52:52 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/16/2008 7:46:34 PM
Author: stone_seeker



dont get the analogy. dope peddling = illegal. Democratic leadership pushed subprime lending. Banks didnt want to lend to people who couldnt afford it and congress said that was unfair to minorities and lower income people. A bit different no?

Banks didn''t care because it wasn''t their money.
Wall Street got in the banking business with no clue and it blew up and took the economy with it.

Yes, quite a bit different...

Most subprime lenders weren''t subject to federal lending law

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/17/2008 1:09:59 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 11/16/2008 4:16:23 PM

Author: stone_seeker





I think your post is a load of crap, with all due respect. Name me one company that has a product that can produce it without money. If wall street had no value, then its collapse should not have the impact its having now. Wall Street didnt force the guy making $15K a year to buy a million dollar home. Congress (democratic leadership) wanted wall street to loosen lending standards and wall street foolishly complied. They profited from it, but they were doing fine before subprime loans started being made.


The term predatory lending is such BS. I got offered hundreds of these no-money down, get paid to buy a home type of deals. Yes, they were enticing and I would have loved to buy a mansion with one - but I said NO. Blaming wall street for the stupidity and greed of a select few is a cop out. But I guess its easier to blame the ''evil money stealers'' on wall street than look in the mirror.

yup,agree 101%

I disagree 90% because their agents certainly contributed to them doing so.
I was just talking to a friend of mine that did the smart thing 30 years fixed at a low interest rate.
Every lender he talked to tried to get him to spend 2x the amount with a ARM and some tried to push him into a interest only and 3x the amount.
When someone tells the average person that they can get a $100k loan and a $200k loan with the same payments it is human nature to get the more expensive home and they took advantage of that with very poor risk explanation or sometimes outright fraud.
Eventually in some parts of the country it got to the point that the only way to average buyer could get a home was with a risky mortgage as there were no houses in their price range because of the availability of the higher loans.
It was truly a case of the tail wagging the dog in some markets.
ie. the loan amounts available driving housing prices instead of housing prices driving loan amounts.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/17/2008 7:24:58 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/17/2008 1:09:59 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 11/16/2008 4:16:23 PM

Author: stone_seeker






I think your post is a load of crap, with all due respect. Name me one company that has a product that can produce it without money. If wall street had no value, then its collapse should not have the impact its having now. Wall Street didnt force the guy making $15K a year to buy a million dollar home. Congress (democratic leadership) wanted wall street to loosen lending standards and wall street foolishly complied. They profited from it, but they were doing fine before subprime loans started being made.


The term predatory lending is such BS. I got offered hundreds of these no-money down, get paid to buy a home type of deals. Yes, they were enticing and I would have loved to buy a mansion with one - but I said NO. Blaming wall street for the stupidity and greed of a select few is a cop out. But I guess its easier to blame the ''evil money stealers'' on wall street than look in the mirror.

yup,agree 101%

I disagree 90% because their agents certainly contributed to them doing so.
I was just talking to a friend of mine that did the smart thing 30 years fixed at a low interest rate.
Every lender he talked to tried to get him to spend 2x the amount with a ARM and some tried to push him into a interest only and 3x the amount.
When someone tells the average person that they can get a $100k loan and a $200k loan with the same payments it is human nature to get the more expensive home and they took advantage of that with very poor risk explanation or sometimes outright fraud.
Eventually in some parts of the country it got to the point that the only way to average buyer could get a home was with a risky mortgage as there were no houses in their price range because of the availability of the higher loans.
It was truly a case of the tail wagging the dog in some markets.
ie. the loan amounts available driving housing prices instead of housing prices driving loan amounts.

Well at least 10% of you makes some sense. Greed may be human nature for some but not all. And certainly stupidity is NOT human nature. Recall the expression "if you believe that, i''ve got a bridge to sell you"? Has some significance here.

The fact is this: if people read their mortgage papers, did some homework, lived within their means - none of this would be taking place and Citigroup would not need to lay off 50,000 more people this morning. I dont use "human nature" as an excuse for spending like its going out of style. I joined PS looking for an engagement ring and I would have loved to have bought a 5 carat D flawless. But i coudnt afford it even though my credit card company told me I could for only $500 a month. Like you, I am angry that my tax dollars have to go to pay for the foolish behavior of many others. Did you hear that the govt is going to reduce the mortgage principal for many people? What a great deal! In hindsight. I wish I had bought a home and missed a few payments too. I guess where we differ is that you seem to place the blame solely on wall street and say they should work for free as a result. On that point we must agree to disagree I guess.

 

[tradergirl]

Just Say No to Crap Sandwich 2.0

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/17/road-to-gop-redemption-roll-back-the-bailouts-draw-a-line-in-the-sand/

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/17/2008 8:13:43 AM
Author: tradergirl
Just Say No to Crap Sandwich 2.0


http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/17/road-to-gop-redemption-roll-back-the-bailouts-draw-a-line-in-the-sand/

The problem with that is that if the automakers fail Washington and Wall Street will go up in flames literally.
There will be no hope of recovery and the people will react very very violently.
The manufacturing infrastructure is where the bailout and investment should be happening not Wall Street.
We need R&D and we need manufacturing back in the USA!

 

[swimmer]

Date: 11/17/2008 9:20:07 AM
Author: strmrdr

The problem with that is that if the automakers fail Washington and Wall Street will go up in flames literally.

There will be no hope of recovery and the people will react very very violently.

The manufacturing infrastructure is where the bailout and investment should be happening not Wall Street.

We need R&D and we need manufacturing back in the USA!

[/quote]

I agree with you completely Storm. We have become a nation of paper pushers. That can not be sustainable and leads to things like super complex financial pyramids that tumble down.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/17/2008 7:24:58 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/17/2008 1:09:59 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 11/16/2008 4:16:23 PM

Author: stone_seeker







I think your post is a load of crap, with all due respect. Name me one company that has a product that can produce it without money. If wall street had no value, then its collapse should not have the impact its having now. Wall Street didnt force the guy making $15K a year to buy a million dollar home. Congress (democratic leadership) wanted wall street to loosen lending standards and wall street foolishly complied. They profited from it, but they were doing fine before subprime loans started being made.


The term predatory lending is such BS. I got offered hundreds of these no-money down, get paid to buy a home type of deals. Yes, they were enticing and I would have loved to buy a mansion with one - but I said NO. Blaming wall street for the stupidity and greed of a select few is a cop out. But I guess its easier to blame the 'evil money stealers' on wall street than look in the mirror.

yup,agree 101%

I disagree 90% because their agents certainly contributed to them doing so.
I was just talking to a friend of mine that did the smart thing 30 years fixed at a low interest rate.
Every lender he talked to tried to get him to spend 2x the amount with a ARM and some tried to push him into a interest only and 3x the amount.
When someone tells the average person that they can get a $100k loan and a $200k loan with the same payments it is human nature to get the more expensive home and they took advantage of that with very poor risk explanation or sometimes outright fraud.
Eventually in some parts of the country it got to the point that the only way to average buyer could get a home was with a risky mortgage as there were no houses in their price range because of the availability of the higher loans.
It was truly a case of the tail wagging the dog in some markets.
ie. the loan amounts available driving housing prices instead of housing prices driving loan amounts.

then don't buy a house. since when was it illegal to rent? why buy something that you can't afford?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/17/2008 2:05:24 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
then don''t buy a house. since when was it illegal to rent? why buy something that you can''t afford?

Very very simple reason.
Rent went up with the house prices because there was more money in selling them as condos.
So when shysterA comes along and says hey we can get you a house/condo for 20% less than your paying in rent they jumped at it, right into the frying pan.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 11/17/2008 8:07:21 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 11/17/2008 7:24:58 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/17/2008 1:09:59 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 11/16/2008 4:16:23 PM

Author: stone_seeker







I think your post is a load of crap, with all due respect. Name me one company that has a product that can produce it without money. If wall street had no value, then its collapse should not have the impact its having now. Wall Street didnt force the guy making $15K a year to buy a million dollar home. Congress (democratic leadership) wanted wall street to loosen lending standards and wall street foolishly complied. They profited from it, but they were doing fine before subprime loans started being made.


The term predatory lending is such BS. I got offered hundreds of these no-money down, get paid to buy a home type of deals. Yes, they were enticing and I would have loved to buy a mansion with one - but I said NO. Blaming wall street for the stupidity and greed of a select few is a cop out. But I guess its easier to blame the ''evil money stealers'' on wall street than look in the mirror.

yup,agree 101%

I disagree 90% because their agents certainly contributed to them doing so.
I was just talking to a friend of mine that did the smart thing 30 years fixed at a low interest rate.
Every lender he talked to tried to get him to spend 2x the amount with a ARM and some tried to push him into a interest only and 3x the amount.
When someone tells the average person that they can get a $100k loan and a $200k loan with the same payments it is human nature to get the more expensive home and they took advantage of that with very poor risk explanation or sometimes outright fraud.
Eventually in some parts of the country it got to the point that the only way to average buyer could get a home was with a risky mortgage as there were no houses in their price range because of the availability of the higher loans.
It was truly a case of the tail wagging the dog in some markets.
ie. the loan amounts available driving housing prices instead of housing prices driving loan amounts.

Well at least 10% of you makes some sense. Greed may be human nature for some but not all. And certainly stupidity is NOT human nature. Recall the expression ''if you believe that, i''ve got a bridge to sell you''? Has some significance here.

The fact is this: if people read their mortgage papers, did some homework, lived within their means - none of this would be taking place and Citigroup would not need to lay off 50,000 more people this morning. I dont use ''human nature'' as an excuse for spending like its going out of style. I joined PS looking for an engagement ring and I would have loved to have bought a 5 carat D flawless. But i coudnt afford it even though my credit card company told me I could for only $500 a month. Like you, I am angry that my tax dollars have to go to pay for the foolish behavior of many others. Did you hear that the govt is going to reduce the mortgage principal for many people? What a great deal! In hindsight. I wish I had bought a home and missed a few payments too. I guess where we differ is that you seem to place the blame solely on wall street and say they should work for free as a result. On that point we must agree to disagree I guess.

Stone seeker, thanks for saying what I was thinking. When I was still working, I was a legal marketing specialist, and worked in both real estate law and financial regulatory law. I can''t discuss the types of cases that I saw in detail, but lets just say that a lot of people who took out loans that they couldn''t afford and ended up losing their homes decided to blame teh lenders instead of themselves. Personally, I would love to live in a $5 million mansion, but we couldn''t afford that on my husband''s salary, so that''s not what we bought. It''s not the bank''s fault that people can''t do simple math and figure out what they can afford. Even though I''m a SAHM now and my husband makes a very good salary, we definitely had to establish a budget and make financial sacrifices so that I could stay home with our son. There have been months when money was tight. Maybe we should just stop paying our mortgage so that we can get our rates reduced and get a free ride from the govt. as well.

It just really upsets me that those of us who are determined to live within our means and make our payments on time, even if it''s not easy, get penalized for playing by the rules, while the people who got in over their heads in debt get help from the very system that they are destroying. I don''t care whether it''s a single mom or a bank on Wall Street, I don''t see why your financial gambles have become my family''s problems and responsibilities.

That said, a lot of the forclosure crisis was caused by the lending practices that were enacted to get people into homes that couldn''t afford them. The banks were pressured to lend to high-risk low-income people under the Clinton administration, and these policies were supported by the Bush administration. Honestly, they should have never been providing loans to people who they knew were irresponsible with money and ultimately unable to pay them.

 

[Beacon]

Totally agree Vespergirl!

We live very much under our means in a modest home we can easily afford. I do not buy the cop-out that people were "forced" into these mortgages. If they were too negligent to read the documentation and ask the hard questions about the loan then that is their choice. But please don''t blame the system. Such a joke.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/17/2008 3:14:49 PM
Author: Beacon
Totally agree Vespergirl!

We live very much under our means in a modest home we can easily afford. I do not buy the cop-out that people were ''forced'' into these mortgages. If they were too negligent to read the documentation and ask the hard questions about the loan then that is their choice. But please don''t blame the system. Such a joke.

Seems like there is a lof of anger on this issue and righty so. I want to be clear that I am not defending wall street since they played their part. They were told to take on something risky and being the geniuses they are, the figured out a way to get it done and spread risk throughout the system. But at least they are paying the piper now. They will be making a lot less and many will be out of work for years to come. Who knows how long this lasts. Dont forget, there are many fewer firms now so many will not get re-hired. But that is what is upsetting - one group is taking the hit and the other guilty party, the greedy homeowner who didnt want to rent, gets bailed out with a reduced mortgage thanks to uncle sam and fellow tax payers. That is what makes me angry the most - the moral hazard of telling people that its ok you cant manage your money, so long as enough of you cant where it becomes a national issue, the govt will bail out with other people''s money.

i feel the government owes me a house.

 

[stone_seeker]

Vindication!

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/vindication.html

 

[decodelighted]

Show me where all the "bailed out" homeowners are? Aside from the old lady who shot herself when the people came to kick her out of her house ... where are they?

ALL the fed bailout $$ we hear about is going to BANKS who are hoarding it -- not giving people breaks on their existing mortgages or loaning more $$.

Free house my ***.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 11/17/2008 3:56:14 PM
Author: decodelighted
Show me where all the ''bailed out'' homeowners are? Aside from the old lady who shot herself when the people came to kick her out of her house ... where are they?

ALL the fed bailout $$ we hear about is going to BANKS who are hoarding it -- not giving people breaks on their existing mortgages or loaning more $$.

Free house my ***.

This might be an example?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BUQR1442LQ.DTL

 

[MoonWater]

The Subprime Good Guys

In recent months, conservative economists and editorialists have tried to pin the blame for the international financial mess on subprime lending and subprime borrowers. If bureaucrats and social activists hadn''t pressured firms to lend to the working poor, the story goes, we''d still be partying like it was 2005 and Bear Stearns would be a going concern. The Wall Street Journal''s editorial page has repeatedly heaped blame on the Community Reinvestment Act, the 1977 law aimed at preventing redlining in minority neighborhoods. Fox Business Network anchor Neil Cavuto in September proclaimed that "loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."
This line of reasoning is absurd for several reasons. Many of the biggest subprime lenders weren''t banks and thus weren''t covered by the CRA. Nobody forced Bear Stearns to borrow $33 for every $1 of assets it had, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn''t coerce highly compensated CEOs into rolling out no-money-down, exploding adjustable-rate mortgages. Banks will lose just as much money lending to really rich white guys like former Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld as they will lending to poor people of color in the South Bronx.

cont...

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/17/2008 4:09:15 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 11/17/2008 3:56:14 PM
Author: decodelighted
Show me where all the ''bailed out'' homeowners are? Aside from the old lady who shot herself when the people came to kick her out of her house ... where are they?

This might be an example?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BUQR1442LQ.DTL

Newly proposed program that no one has benefited from yet. And further down in the article it says: "Although the mortgage giants are under a government conservatorship, the housing agency official says that any losses under the program will not be paid for by taxpayers unless Fannie and Freddie exhaust their reserves." Doesn''t sound like taxpayer money going directly to homeowners .. at least for now ... unlike the Big Bank Bailout.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 11/17/2008 4:57:27 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 11/17/2008 4:09:15 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 11/17/2008 3:56:14 PM
Author: decodelighted
Show me where all the ''bailed out'' homeowners are? Aside from the old lady who shot herself when the people came to kick her out of her house ... where are they?

This might be an example?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BUQR1442LQ.DTL

Newly proposed program that no one has benefited from yet. And further down in the article it says: ''Although the mortgage giants are under a government conservatorship, the housing agency official says that any losses under the program will not be paid for by taxpayers unless Fannie and Freddie exhaust their reserves.'' Doesn''t sound like taxpayer money going directly to homeowners .. at least for now ... unlike the Big Bank Bailout.

Well that''s good to know.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/17/2008 3:56:14 PM
Author: decodelighted
Show me where all the ''bailed out'' homeowners are? Aside from the old lady who shot herself when the people came to kick her out of her house ... where are they?

ALL the fed bailout $$ we hear about is going to BANKS who are hoarding it -- not giving people breaks on their existing mortgages or loaning more $$.

Free house my ***.

neither side deserves any money from taxpayers.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 11/17/2008 2:17:56 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/17/2008 2:05:24 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
then don''t buy a house. since when was it illegal to rent? why buy something that you can''t afford?

Very very simple reason.
Rent went up with the house prices because there was more money in selling them as condos.
So when shysterA comes along and says hey we can get you a house/condo for 20% less than your paying in rent they jumped at it, right into the frying pan.

and it was even worse: mortgage brokers saying a buyer was crazy not to take advantage of those creative loans. we have EXCELLENT credit with 20% DOWN PAYMENT and we had mortgage brokers pouting because we wouldn''t jump on their wonderful scam schemes. they treated us like we were stupid....but we knew what we were doing. people trusted those mortgage brokers and while they didn''t do their homework, they did buy their dream: and that''s what was being marketed to buyers.

movie zombie

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/17/2008 7:28:08 PM
Author: movie zombie

and it was even worse: mortgage brokers saying a buyer was crazy not to take advantage of those creative loans. we have EXCELLENT credit with 20% DOWN PAYMENT and we had mortgage brokers pouting because we wouldn''t jump on their wonderful scam schemes. they treated us like we were stupid....but we knew what we were doing. people trusted those mortgage brokers and while they didn''t do their homework, they did buy their dream: and that''s what was being marketed to buyers.

movie zombie

and that dream has become their nightmare.

 

[movie zombie]

yes it has.......but for some it was an honest attempt to become a part of the ownership society. they weren''t scamming...the brokers were scamming them when they qualified them for loans they knew they couldn''t afford. all they cared about was getting their $ for having made a sale...and now its our nightmare as well. its easy to sit back and cast blame....but having talked to brokers 4.5 years ago, i know the shell game they were playing. yes, its always let the buyer be ware, but when someone who is crunching numbers for you says you can afford it if you do x, y and z, then you do it because you want to be a homeowner. look at the posts shortly after all this was coming down here at pricescope from posters bemoaning the lack of ability to get loans to buy. it never should have been as easy as it got and it only did because each time a piece of paper transfered from one set of hand to another a very nice fee was charged. yeah, i''m ticked that those of that are more educated re these things and did the right thing are now going to have to pay for all this....but i''m more ticked at the brokers and wall street who made it happen in the first place...and don''t get me started re appraisers that knew that everyone wanted an inflated house value and complied. again, i saw that in the 80''s with the savings and loan bailout situation and i saw it when i sold my little house 4.5 years ago when the buyer needed more cash in order to pay his real estate agent and it was agreed to have the price of my house raised over what we agreed to sell it for and the appraiser came in at that value.

movie zombie

 

[ksinger]

Date: 11/17/2008 10:36:19 PM
Author: movie zombie
yes it has.......but for some it was an honest attempt to become a part of the ownership society. they weren''t scamming...the brokers were scamming them when they qualified them for loans they knew they couldn''t afford. all they cared about was getting their $ for having made a sale...and now its our nightmare as well. its easy to sit back and cast blame....but having talked to brokers 4.5 years ago, i know the shell game they were playing. yes, its always let the buyer be ware, but when someone who is crunching numbers for you says you can afford it if you do x, y and z, then you do it because you want to be a homeowner. look at the posts shortly after all this was coming down here at pricescope from posters bemoaning the lack of ability to get loans to buy. it never should have been as easy as it got and it only did because each time a piece of paper transfered from one set of hand to another a very nice fee was charged. yeah, i''m ticked that those of that are more educated re these things and did the right thing are now going to have to pay for all this....but i''m more ticked at the brokers and wall street who made it happen in the first place...and don''t get me started re appraisers that knew that everyone wanted an inflated house value and complied. again, i saw that in the 80''s with the savings and loan bailout situation and i saw it when i sold my little house 4.5 years ago when the buyer needed more cash in order to pay his real estate agent and it was agreed to have the price of my house raised over what we agreed to sell it for and the appraiser came in at that value.

movie zombie

What I find interesting is this buyer beware stuff. Talk about drinking the koolaid of deregulation. There was a time when a cavalier attitude of buyer beware got so outrageous that it sparked the backlash that was The Pure Food and Drug Act.

I get amused at how we get our knickers all in a twist about melamine in pet food, and say "Where were our regulatory bodies??!!?? Why isn''t the government checking this stuff??" (while the Chinese shrug and say, "Hey, what''s the big thing? 9 times out of 10 it won''t hurt you. Buyer beware") and yet think it''s perfectly OK for some scam artist to offer a million dollar loan to someone making 15K. And then blame the guy for taking it. Yeah, HE was dumb. The other guy was damn near criminal.

Ten years ago when I got my house, I went through a rigorous, old-fashioned going over by the bank. (That was back when they had REAL guidelines and standards to make loans) They pried into my finances with a crowbar. They ended up offering to loan me what I thought then was far more than they should. About 18K more than I felt I could afford, and I didn''t use up to the limit. In retropsect, I could have handled that amount quite well. An extra 18K seems so quaint now. But the point is, they didn''t even OFFER more than I could have handled. They knew, by being the so-called "professionals" in this area, how much to safely offer for my good AND theirs.

 

[tanuki]

I agree with the poster above who said the mortgage brokers treated the applicants like they were committing a crime if they wanted a fixed rate loan and if you had the goal of actually one day living in a paid-off house you had to stand up to them and keep saying "no" until you finally got the type of loan you wanted. They were very aggressive in marketing things that increased their commission. If it hadn''t been for the fact that certain health problems seem to run in my family and I had a true fear that my stream of income was going to decrease in my 50''s and wanted to at least get my house paid off, I don''t know if I could have stood up to the high pressure sales tactics.

We also have a case here in Atlanta yesterday where someone allowed an illegal immigrant to buy a house using the social security number and name of his child who was 2 at the time. So obviously no one was even running the most basic credit checks on the applicants. I remember when there wasn''t a day that went by that there wasn''t a piece of junk mail trying to get me to take out a home equity loan.

These subprime applicants that banks were encouraged by Congress to stop redlining due to race have actually had a low rate of forclosure. That is probably because the homes in the neighborhoods involved were so cheap that they could keep up the payments. Note the Congress only encouraged community banks, not Wall Street. Wall Street got into the million dollar home market all on its own.

 

[coda72]

I agree with the group of people who are not in favor of bailing out people who can''t pay their mortgages (although I think it''s a necessary evil.) If you are signing a document that is going to be affecting you for the next 30 years of your life, you darn well better know what you''re signing. And if you don''t understand it, then get someone knowledgeable to explain it to you. I don''t have much sympathy for people who got in over their heads because of ignorance. I pay my bills every month, why shouldn''t you?

As for predatory lending, everyone has an anecdote about that. My husband and I bought 6 properties between 2004 and 2007 and all but one mortgage is a standard 30 year mortgage. The mortgage broker never tried to talk us into something exotic, but maybe he wasn''t one of the greedy ones. I think he also knew that we wouldn''t fall for something like that. People really needed to know what they were signing, but since they didn''t, the rest of us will be paying for their mistakes.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/17/2008 2:05:24 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

then don't buy a house. since when was it illegal to rent? why buy something that you can't afford?

I don't usually follow this thread, but I just saw this.


Homeowners are subsidized by the government which gives them tax deductions on mortgage interest. Renters aren't.


In my opinion, that is unfair. It is welfare for the rich.


Deborah