Home loan forgiveness

[Ringel05]

OK...how about this...(not a true story)

There is a guy I know who had an idea and wanted to start a company that revolved around the idea. He invested his savings and began his venture. Things were going well for him as he expanded and hired more employees. However, whereas the demand for his product was there, the long life of his product (he spent time and money ensuring superior manufacturing and using top quality materials) the demand rapidly faded as he saturated the market. IN esence his idea was a good one but his desire to put out a quality product proved to be his downfall. He pumped much of the money he made into R and D in the hopes he can come up with another product to sell....but he ran out of funds and had to shut down...losing everything.

We all have been put in positions to make decisions...sometimes we win and sometimes we lose...but it is the desire to win that keeps us going.

But anyway......do we help the guy you know with the house? If yes, do we help the guy I know with the failed business?

Maybe the guy you know should not have bought a house knowing he and his wife were on government contracts? Maybe my guy should have made his products out of cheeper materials and screw over the consumer?

Wonder if you see my point.

I see your point but many aren't seeing mine which is simple. Too many here believe that all the recipients of "government welfare" (so to speak) are do nothing, low life mooches, always have been, always will be.
None of us own a crystal ball besides which, your story is different in one very key point, the business owner made a conscience choice (about his product) and suffered as a result, the guy I know made all the right choices, based on the information he had at the time and is now suffering the consequences because of forces beyond his control.

That couple would qualify for the FHFA mortgage program Obama is claiming was his idea, so they can get help. In fact, given the fact that they have built up equity in their home, they could probably refinance their mortgage without the FHFA. The actual likelihood they will loose their home only if they insist on not taking reasonable steps to make sure they do not.

Not positive equity, serious negative equity.

 

[The T]

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

You, like most on the right, miss the point:

‘…another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.’

If Congress would only do something, there’d be no need to ‘bypass.’

The issue isn’t whether the proposal is a good one or not, but that the House refuses to do anything at all.

Why should Congress act to interfere in a private contract? Would you like it if Congress told you that everyone that owed you money did not have to pay you back?

Once Again, use the quote button, it is at the bottom of every post you see.

Thanks for this. That's why I skip over that poster's posts.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Talking points and more talking points. No banks were forced to do anything......and the suggestion that requiring banks to be equal opportunity lenders was a strong arm tactic is just false.

Do you people think that the US government paid for all the advertising that banks did for the products they sold to US consumers? Nope. The banks were all in.

Do yourselves a favor.....drop the bullshit about people with hands outstretched toward your back pocket. You have been fooled.

 

[Wiseacre]

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

You, like most on the right, miss the point:

‘…another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.’

If Congress would only do something, there’d be no need to ‘bypass.’

The issue isn’t whether the proposal is a good one or not, but that the House refuses to do anything at all.

Actually, the House has passed bill after bill up to the Senate, where it languishes on Harry Reid's desk. In fact, is it not the democratic controlled Senate who refuses to do anything? Hell, they can't even get everyone from their own party to support the president's jobs bill, or any of the other initiatives he's proposed. And when's the last time they passed a budget?

What you really mean is that the repubs won't pass the things that Obama and the dems want, because they do not believe their solutions will work.

I think you know as well as I do that reducing the mortgage principle for F&F loans is in fact more gov't spending for some people but not others. Obama and the Ds do not want to offset the additional spending with spending cuts somewhere else, and they know the repubs won't pass the bill if they don't pay for it in some manner. What we have hre is another example of neither side willing to budge, and blaming just the repubs is dishonest.

 

[The T]

So, this all leads to the question: what do you think of the idea of lowering somebody's mortgage principle with the US taxpayers paying for it? I can see extending the mortgage period out to 40 or even 50 years, or requiring a lower loan interest. What's your opinion?

You, like most on the right, miss the point:

‘…another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.’

If Congress would only do something, there’d be no need to ‘bypass.’

The issue isn’t whether the proposal is a good one or not, but that the House refuses to do anything at all.

Actually, the House has passed bill after bill up to the Senate, where it languishes on Harry Reid's desk. In fact, is it not the democratic controlled Senate who refuses to do anything? Hell, they can't even get everyone from their own party to support the president's jobs bill, or any of the other initiatives he's proposed. And when's the last time they passed a budget?

What you really mean is that the repubs won't pass the things that Obama and the dems want, because they do not believe their solutions will work.

I think you know as well as I do that reducing the mortgage principle for F&F loans is in fact more gov't spending for some people but not others. Obama and the Ds do not want to offset the additional spending with spending cuts somewhere else, and they know the repubs won't pass the bill if they don't pay for it in some manner. What we have hre is another example of neither side willing to budge, and blaming just the repubs is dishonest.

Indeed. The whole thing is a setup to make Republicans look bad.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Dey awe making us wook bad! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[Ringel05]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Dey awe making us wook bad! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

I see you understand politics as usual.........

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Dey awe making us wook bad! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Brilliant... as usual.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why, thank you. I am inspired by the continuous whining coming from some of the greedy nutters here.

 

[The T]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Dey awe making us wook bad! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Lunger? YOU aren't very good at this.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Talking points and more talking points. No banks were forced to do anything......and the suggestion that requiring banks to be equal opportunity lenders was a strong arm tactic is just false.

Do you people think that the US government paid for all the advertising that banks did for the products they sold to US consumers? Nope. The banks were all in.

Do yourselves a favor.....drop the bullshit about people with hands outstretched toward your back pocket. You have been fooled.

How is regulators holding up a banks business because a community group complains they're not granting mortgages to low income people not strong arming?

Hell, I never said is was all CRA, but CRA was not an insignificant factor.. nor were the banks, Wall St. and some folks who willingly borrowed money they could never pay back. They should ALL take their lumps.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anyhoo.. what are you losing if you lose a house you put nothing down on? What's your Equity after 5 -10 years? $57?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see your point but many aren't seeing mine which is simple. Too many here believe that all the recipients of "government welfare" (so to speak) are do nothing, low life mooches, always have been, always will be.
None of us own a crystal ball besides which, your story is different in one very key point, the business owner made a conscience choice (about his product) and suffered as a result, the guy I know made all the right choices, based on the information he had at the time and is now suffering the consequences because of forces beyond his control.

That couple would qualify for the FHFA mortgage program Obama is claiming was his idea, so they can get help. In fact, given the fact that they have built up equity in their home, they could probably refinance their mortgage without the FHFA. The actual likelihood they will loose their home only if they insist on not taking reasonable steps to make sure they do not.

Not positive equity, serious negative equity.

They still qualify for the new program unless they have missed payments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You, like most on the right, miss the point:

‘…another stimulus plan that bypasses Congress, imagine that.’

If Congress would only do something, there’d be no need to ‘bypass.’

The issue isn’t whether the proposal is a good one or not, but that the House refuses to do anything at all.

Why should Congress act to interfere in a private contract? Would you like it if Congress told you that everyone that owed you money did not have to pay you back?

Once Again, use the quote button, it is at the bottom of every post you see.

Thanks for this. That's why I skip over that poster's posts.

I have been doing it for a while. It seems every time I do he leaves the thread though, I wonder if he takes it personally.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Talking points and more talking points. No banks were forced to do anything......and the suggestion that requiring banks to be equal opportunity lenders was a strong arm tactic is just false.

Do you people think that the US government paid for all the advertising that banks did for the products they sold to US consumers? Nope. The banks were all in.

Do yourselves a favor.....drop the bullshit about people with hands outstretched toward your back pocket. You have been fooled.

Can we bet on that?

 

[syrenn]

Anyhoo.. what are you losing if you lose a house you put nothing down on? What's your Equity after 5 -10 years? $57?

If you put nothing down its not much different the paying rent on an apartment. No harm no foul.

 

[FactFinder]

Home loan forgiveness

Yeah, for all those cheated during the housing bubble, they should have their terms renegotiated on an honest table.

 

[syrenn]

Home loan forgiveness

Yeah, for all those cheated during the housing bubble, they should have their terms renegotiated on an honest table.

Why?

They signed the loan. If they thought the house was to much money, or more then they could afford, they had every right and option to walk away.


No one was cheated, it was the era of over bidding.

 

[syrenn]

There's a guy I know, in his late 50s now, both he and his wife do government contract work, always paid his bills on time, paid their taxes, bought a house that was affordable (at the time) and was able to put extra money away into savings.
6 months ago his wife's contract went bye bye and when nothing came through she went into a depression. His job was downgraded and in order to have a job he had to take a major cut in pay and the job has no medical insurance. He does what he can for extra money but has some developing serious physical ailments which limits what he can do and may not be able to continue working without proper medical care which he can't afford.
Their emergency funds are almost gone and without some kind of intervention they will possibly lose their home.

Ya know what, i feel bad for him.

It does not change the fact that buying a house and taking out a loan is a gamble and a risk.

 

[FactFinder]

Home loan forgiveness

Yeah, for all those cheated during the housing bubble, they should have their terms renegotiated on an honest table.

Why?

They signed the loan. If they thought the house was to much money, or more then they could afford, they had every right and option to walk away.


No one was cheated, it was the era of over bidding.

Yeah, you are talking about oppressed people who were sweet talked by those who knew better. Tell it to your grandma.