The blatant truth about Republicans and the word "that"

Name these new regulations and specifically explain how they are stopping you from refinancing.

I explained them. You just didn't read them.

Banks are buying partial mortgages. For example I have 3 properties on one loan. Bank of America bought 2 of the properties and took over servicing the loans. Another bank holds the other property. They offered a mortgage loan program to reduce the interests on those loans, but the only way I can get it done is if I pay several thousand to have the properties surveyed as separate. Plus I have to have 6 months worth of payments in cash on hand.

To take advantage of the program the banks have us in a bind. In a nut-shell.....in order to make money you have to have money.

Name the regulations and provide a link to them and where/when they originated.

So you had a non conforming loan tying three properties to one note and mortgage.
But you say BoA took over servicing of the "loans" plural.

Which is it? You got one loan being serviced or three? And why would you have been stupid enough to tie three properties together into one note and mortgage. That was stupid from the start. You should have known that would be a problem down the road. What did you do, believe the non conforming loan officer when he took your money? Like so many others did.

And 6 months of cash reserves has been the lending standard for investors for many years

Evidentally, you either don't know wtf you are talking about or doing. And you sure as hell are not a good credit risk. Can't show 6 months reserves. You are denied.

What you got a credit score of 590 or something.

But blaming your poor financial sense on Obama is total bull shit.

btw, for people that invest in RE, the loan mod programs were never intended for us. They were always intended to help those who lived in their homes. why don't you know that?
 
Frankly, without anything to back up your assertion it means nothing.

Without any proof of what you are asserting it could be anything from a federal regulation, to a bank imposed policy, to pure bull pull from your ass.

It's an example of new regulations complicating existing laws. If you can't figure that out then I can't help you. The purpose of Dodd/Frank was to keep banks from screwing borrowers. You tell me how well it worked.

You haven't proven that the "new" regulation exists.

Provide a link to this regulation you are speaking of.

Prove where it came from, who implemented it, and when it took effect.

Not everything that happens to folks happens on the internet. We're talking reality here.
You're suggesting that the bank rep was lying to me. That they were quoting rules that don't exist. Now, why would they do that? That could open them up for a lawsuit.

We're done talking now.
 
It's an example of new regulations complicating existing laws. If you can't figure that out then I can't help you. The purpose of Dodd/Frank was to keep banks from screwing borrowers. You tell me how well it worked.

You haven't proven that the "new" regulation exists.

Provide a link to this regulation you are speaking of.

Prove where it came from, who implemented it, and when it took effect.

Not everything that happens to folks happens on the internet. We're talking reality here.
You're suggesting that the bank rep was lying to me. That they were quoting rules that don't exist. Now, why would they do that? That could open them up for a lawsuit.

We're done talking now.

In other words, you can't back up anything that you are saying and now you are taking your ball and going home.

Surprised, I am not.
 
Not everything that happens to folks happens on the internet. We're talking reality here.
You're suggesting that the bank rep was lying to me. That they were quoting rules that don't exist. Now, why would they do that? That could open them up for a lawsuit.

We're done talking now.
In other words, you can't back up anything that you are saying and now you are taking your ball and going home.

Surprised, I am not.


BINGO, dude is just making shit up.
 
Sucks when you get a dose of your own medicine....doesn't it?????

What do you mean?

The left crying about being taken out of context is pathetic.

Remember the way they tied into Mitt Romney when he said he like being able to fire people?

How much mileage did you assholes try to get off of that?


I think it's just Karma.

Did President Obama use Romney's "I like to fire people" in a political ad?
 
mukky. Your credit score sucks. Banks hate investors anyway. You have no cash reserves. Your properties are all screwed up from the way you evidently purchased them.

Why the hell would any bank lend you money.

Does your Sch E show you are makiing money. Or are you writing the gross rents down to the point you show a loss.

Lots of things going on in a mortgage application that you are not talking about. Just so you can blame Obama.
 
The word "that" - in red below - refers to the words in bold below.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

The underlined words reinforce this obvious fact.


Quite frankly, anyone who thinks "that" refers to "business" is a fucking retard, I mean, just really, really stupid. Its amazing you have the mental capacity to even breathe.. Seriously, words cannot express how dumb you are.

Wrong.



If you've got a business - you didn't build that.


The antecedent of that is business. Simple grammar. Simple English. Simple rules.
 
You haven't proven that the "new" regulation exists.

Provide a link to this regulation you are speaking of.

Prove where it came from, who implemented it, and when it took effect.

Not everything that happens to folks happens on the internet. We're talking reality here.
You're suggesting that the bank rep was lying to me. That they were quoting rules that don't exist. Now, why would they do that? That could open them up for a lawsuit.

We're done talking now.

In other words, you can't back up anything that you are saying and now you are taking your ball and going home.

Surprised, I am not.

Your're just being a ass, nothing new
 
Frankly, without anything to back up your assertion it means nothing.

Without any proof of what you are asserting it could be anything from a federal regulation, to a bank imposed policy, to pure bull pull from your ass.

It's an example of new regulations complicating existing laws. If you can't figure that out then I can't help you. The purpose of Dodd/Frank was to keep banks from screwing borrowers. You tell me how well it worked.

You haven't proven that the "new" regulation exists.

Provide a link to this regulation you are speaking of.

Prove where it came from, who implemented it, and when it took effect.
The law is Dodd-Frank and the regulations made pursuant to it. It has totally screwed up the mortgage business. And probably everything else financially as well. Another albatross of a piece of legislation thanks to the Democrats and Obama.
 
Ooh Poo Poo Do Do didn't build this thread, someone else did that.
 
Not everything that happens to folks happens on the internet. We're talking reality here.
You're suggesting that the bank rep was lying to me. That they were quoting rules that don't exist. Now, why would they do that? That could open them up for a lawsuit.

We're done talking now.

In other words, you can't back up anything that you are saying and now you are taking your ball and going home.

Surprised, I am not.

Your're just being a ass, nothing new
Art is right. Folks really should back up their claims.

Mud is right. He is telling his personal experience. That's an anecdote.

And, going back to Art, he is right again, because anecdotes aren't really all that much proof of much of anything.

But, if Mud doesn't have any proof of the regulations being the cause of his refinancing headaches, then Art can take that or leave that.

I ask for support for claims quite often and I don't believe that makes me an ass. I just don't take the posted words of someone on the net at face value, even if I like the poster.

Just the way I roll.
 
The word "that" - in red below - refers to the words in bold below.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

The underlined words reinforce this obvious fact.


Quite frankly, anyone who thinks "that" refers to "business" is a fucking retard, I mean, just really, really stupid. Its amazing you have the mental capacity to even breathe.. Seriously, words cannot express how dumb you are.

Wrong.



If you've got a business - you didn't build that.


The antecedent of that is business. Simple grammar. Simple English. Simple rules.

Bullshit. In full context, it's clear that the "you didn't build that" is referring to everything surrounding that one sentence i.e. the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc.

Now, you're too smart to believe otherwise so I'm just chalking this up to you being obtuse for partisan purposes which is fine but don't think you are fooling anybody who doesn't share your agenda and/or has two brain cells left to rub together.
 
In other words, you can't back up anything that you are saying and now you are taking your ball and going home.

Surprised, I am not.

Your're just being a ass, nothing new
Art is right. Folks really should back up their claims.

Mud is right. He is telling his personal experience. That's an anecdote.

And, going back to Art, he is right again, because anecdotes aren't really all that much proof of much of anything.

But, if Mud doesn't have any proof of the regulations being the cause of his refinancing headaches, then Art can take that or leave that.

I ask for support for claims quite often and I don't believe that makes me an ass. I just don't take the posted words of someone on the net at face value, even if I like the poster.

Just the way I roll.

well, like mud is suppose to have the regulation...I'm sure the bank came out and told which one it was..
sorry, I disagree with you on this one.
but I stand by what I posted
 
It's an example of new regulations complicating existing laws. If you can't figure that out then I can't help you. The purpose of Dodd/Frank was to keep banks from screwing borrowers. You tell me how well it worked.

You haven't proven that the "new" regulation exists.

Provide a link to this regulation you are speaking of.

Prove where it came from, who implemented it, and when it took effect.
The law is Dodd-Frank and the regulations made pursuant to it. It has totally screwed up the mortgage business. And probably everything else financially as well. Another albatross of a piece of legislation thanks to the Democrats and Obama.

Then link the bill and the specific text that is germane to Mud's claim.
 
The word "that" - in red below - refers to the words in bold below.


The underlined words reinforce this obvious fact.


Quite frankly, anyone who thinks "that" refers to "business" is a fucking retard, I mean, just really, really stupid. Its amazing you have the mental capacity to even breathe.. Seriously, words cannot express how dumb you are.

Wrong.



If you've got a business - you didn't build that.


The antecedent of that is business. Simple grammar. Simple English. Simple rules.

Bullshit. In full context, it's clear that the "you didn't build that" is referring to everything surrounding that one sentence i.e. the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc.

Now, you're too smart to believe otherwise so I'm just chalking this up to you being obtuse for partisan purposes which is fine but don't think you are fooling anybody who doesn't share your agenda and/or has two brain cells left to rub together.
It's simple grammatical rules. Sorry about that.
 
The word "that" - in red below - refers to the words in bold below.


The underlined words reinforce this obvious fact.


Quite frankly, anyone who thinks "that" refers to "business" is a fucking retard, I mean, just really, really stupid. Its amazing you have the mental capacity to even breathe.. Seriously, words cannot express how dumb you are.

Wrong.



If you've got a business - you didn't build that.


The antecedent of that is business. Simple grammar. Simple English. Simple rules.

Bullshit. In full context, it's clear that the "you didn't build that" is referring to everything surrounding that one sentence i.e. the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc.

Now, you're too smart to believe otherwise so I'm just chalking this up to you being obtuse for partisan purposes which is fine but don't think you are fooling anybody who doesn't share your agenda and/or has two brain cells left to rub together.
So Obama was telling people that entrepreneurs didnt build roads and bridges? Is that your final answer?
No.
The context also suggests that he means people didnt build their businesses on their own.
You fail. As usual.
 

Forum List

Back
Top