Irresponsibility!! The NEW Vision for government.

[Navy1960]

Since when did it become the responsibility of the government to come to the rescue of ANYONE that cannot pay a mortgage. We have had in this country for as long as I can remember something called "responsiblity". However now, rather than place some of the blame upon the very people that get into a situation where they no longer can afford their homes, and use the system of foreclosure and bankruptcy in place we decide its now our responsibility to not only pay our own bills but our neighbors too. Why because when they signed their mortgage and knew what the payments were going into the mortgage and still could not make those payments , thats fine, it's not their fault because no one has any responsibility anymore. I find this position completely unbelievable and cannot understand why someone , anyone would advocate taking money from literally millions upon millions of Americans that pay their mortgages every month on time to prop up those that don't.

"Bankruptcy protection for homeowners. Some Democrats see this bill as a golden opportunity to renew their push for a proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to unilaterally restructure home mortgages for those facing bankruptcy. Such a measure failed earlier this year when it was included in a larger housing bill because Republicans balked at granting the power to bankruptcy judges. But now that the federal government is poised to assume responsibility for hundreds of billions in bad debt, Democrats see a good selling point in pitching the idea that consumers should get a break, too."

• Social spending and infrastructure funds. The most liberal Democrats are pushing to have an economic stimulus package — with unemployment extensions, infrastructure spending and aid to states — tacked on to the bill.

Democrats eye bailout ??? and more - Yahoo! News

So now, it's okay to be irresponsible and NOT pay your bills, because why? "change" is on the way to help you.

 

[Modbert]

Since when did it become the responsibility of the government to come to the rescue of ANYONE that cannot pay a mortgage. We have had in this country for as long as I can remember something called "responsiblity". However now, rather than place some of the blame upon the very people that get into a situation where they no longer can afford their homes, and use the system of foreclosure and bankruptcy in place we decide its now our responsibility to not only pay our own bills but our neighbors too. Why because when they signed their mortgage and knew what the payments were going into the mortgage and still could not make those payments , thats fine, it's not their fault because no one has any responsibility anymore. I find this position completely unbelievable and cannot understand why someone , anyone would advocate taking money from literally millions upon millions of Americans that pay their mortgages every month on time to prop up those that don't.

"Bankruptcy protection for homeowners. Some Democrats see this bill as a golden opportunity to renew their push for a proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to unilaterally restructure home mortgages for those facing bankruptcy. Such a measure failed earlier this year when it was included in a larger housing bill because Republicans balked at granting the power to bankruptcy judges. But now that the federal government is poised to assume responsibility for hundreds of billions in bad debt, Democrats see a good selling point in pitching the idea that consumers should get a break, too."

• Social spending and infrastructure funds. The most liberal Democrats are pushing to have an economic stimulus package — with unemployment extensions, infrastructure spending and aid to states — tacked on to the bill.

Democrats eye bailout ??? and more - Yahoo! News

So now, it's okay to be irresponsible and NOT pay your bills, because why? "change" is on the way to help you.

I rather see the homeowners be bailed out then these companies.

Plenty of these people had mortgages they could afford but the cost of living has increased dramatically.

I've used this example before but:

Your making say 10, everything costs 7.

Everything now costs 15, your still making 10.

So you get a small pay raise to 12, but everything now costs 17.

You take out loans to afford 17, but you'll end up in debt for least 20 due to interest rates.

So now your making 12, but your in debt for least 20.

That's what happened in this country to many middle class Americans. To responsible and irresponsible people alike.

 

[Navy1960]

I rather see the homeowners be bailed out then these companies.

Plenty of these people had mortgages they could afford but the cost of living has increased dramatically.

I've used this example before but:

Your making say 10, everything costs 7.

Everything now costs 15, your still making 10.

So you get a small pay raise to 12, but everything now costs 17.

You take out loans to afford 17, but you'll end up in debt for least 20 due to interest rates.

So now your making 12, but your in debt for least 20.

That's what happened in this country to many middle class Americans. To responsible and irresponsible people alike.

While, I feel bad Robert for anyone that loses their home, that's NOT how our society works. If someone borrows money to pay for a home and cannot afford to pay for it then they lose the home or find an alternative source to finance it. However, that does not mean I am any less an advocate for the responsibility of Mortgage houses and financial institutions set to benefit from this bailout.

 

[WillowTree]

I think it is in our best interest to let this fcuking country tank. Fuck every last one of them..

 

[Modbert]

While, I feel bad Robert for anyone that loses their home, that's NOT how our society works. If someone borrows money to pay for a home and cannot afford to pay for it then they lose the home or find an alternative source to finance it. However, that does not mean I am any less an advocate for the responsibility of Mortgage houses and financial institutions set to benefit from this bailout.

You haven't even seen the worst of things for this whole stock market thing yet.

10% of New York's budget is from the bonuses that these people make on Wall Street. TEN PERCENT OF ALL OF NEW YORK'S BUDGET!

It's crazy that they're being paid that much that they alone can supply 10% of New York's budget.

 

[Navy1960]

You haven't even seen the worst of things for this whole stock market thing yet.

10% of New York's budget is from the bonuses that these people make on Wall Street. TEN PERCENT OF ALL OF NEW YORK'S BUDGET!

It's crazy that they're being paid that much that they alone can supply 10% of New York's budget.

My financial advisor told me this morning that, what they are hearing the failures at the top of the banking system is just a indication of whats to come. That literally 100's of small banks are set to do the same thing as Fannie.Freddie, then you have the Airlines set to go sometime next month and ask for what I am told is 34 billion to bail them out. I tend to agree with you on that Robert.

 

[WillowTree]

My financial advisor told me this morning that, what they are hearing the failures at the top of the banking system is just a indication of whats to come. That literally 100's of small banks are set to do the same thing as Fannie.Freddie, then you have the Airlines set to go sometime next month and ask for what I am told is 34 billion to bail them out. I tend to agree with you on that Robert.

and then there is the auto industry.

 

[Modbert]

and then there is the auto industry.

Yup, now both the Auto and Airline industry want bailouts.

The Next Bailout: Detroit's Automakers | Newsweek Voices - Keith Naughton | Newsweek.com

Ready to fly into history: Which airlines will go under next? - Times Online

 

[Navy1960]

and then there is the auto industry.

It's my point exactly Willow, what happened to the days when a business made a bad decision everyone said. " well they screwed up and now are bankrupt" I seem to remember something along those lines with WorldCom, Enron, and many many others. So the difference now is what? they are a bigger company? Well send them to bankruptcy court and let the court bust them apart and sell the profitable assets to help pay for the non profitable ones. What really, make me wonder here, is how the hell is ANYONE going to keep taxes from going up with all these bailouts and tacking on tons of new social programs as well.

 

[WillowTree]

The one and only way to stop this shit is to stop working. Everybody needs to sit down on their ass and stop working.

 

[Jon]

I rather see the homeowners be bailed out then these companies.

Plenty of these people had mortgages they could afford but the cost of living has increased dramatically.

I've used this example before but:

Your making say 10, everything costs 7.

Everything now costs 15, your still making 10.

So you get a small pay raise to 12, but everything now costs 17.

You take out loans to afford 17, but you'll end up in debt for least 20 due to interest rates.

So now your making 12, but your in debt for least 20.

That's what happened in this country to many middle class Americans. To responsible and irresponsible people alike.

That's why, when things get tough, some people get second jobs. It's what my mom had to do, but she's still paying her mortgage every month. It would have been easier for her to just stop, but instead, she's working hard to do the responsible thing. She prefers to walk around with her head held high.

Democrats are all about bailing out the irresponsible. Can't pay your mortgage? Don't! We'll pay it for you. Got pregnant and didn't mean to? Have an abortion! Can't afford healthcare because you have a lousy job? We'll give it to you for free!

 

[jillian]

I think it is in our best interest to let this fcuking country tank. Fuck every last one of them..

every last one of whom? people like you?

 

[WillowTree]

every last one of whom? people like you?

you first, but actually I was referring to the congresscritters.

 

[user_name_guest]

Robert, no one should be bailed out. The ones who offered the loans. The ones that took the loans. We shouldn't reward anyone for making bad decisions. Stricter regulation was needed in mortgages, however, some bozo decided to lessen it so everyone can afford a home. Now they are paying the price. Let them pay. Because the ones that afford their homes are. They are paying their mortgages. But do they get rewarded. No, they get punished by giving taxpayers monies to ones that should be punished.

However it is too late. Whatever happened to Congress representing the people. It seems that they are representing these financial institutions.

I rather see the homeowners be bailed out then these companies.

Plenty of these people had mortgages they could afford but the cost of living has increased dramatically.

I've used this example before but:

Your making say 10, everything costs 7.

Everything now costs 15, your still making 10.

So you get a small pay raise to 12, but everything now costs 17.

You take out loans to afford 17, but you'll end up in debt for least 20 due to interest rates.

So now your making 12, but your in debt for least 20.

That's what happened in this country to many middle class Americans. To responsible and irresponsible people alike.

 

[Missourian]

I was listening to O'Reilly on the radio today and he said something that I think is absolutely true...the entire 1st term of the next president will be entirely dedicated to cleaning up this mess. There will be no tax cuts or healthcare or entitlement spending or new weapon devolopement. Whether it be Obama or McCain all they will be able to fund is the WOT and these bailouts.

 

[Care4all]

Since when did it become the responsibility of the government to come to the rescue of ANYONE that cannot pay a mortgage. We have had in this country for as long as I can remember something called "responsiblity". However now, rather than place some of the blame upon the very people that get into a situation where they no longer can afford their homes, and use the system of foreclosure and bankruptcy in place we decide its now our responsibility to not only pay our own bills but our neighbors too. Why because when they signed their mortgage and knew what the payments were going into the mortgage and still could not make those payments , thats fine, it's not their fault because no one has any responsibility anymore. I find this position completely unbelievable and cannot understand why someone , anyone would advocate taking money from literally millions upon millions of Americans that pay their mortgages every month on time to prop up those that don't.

"Bankruptcy protection for homeowners. Some Democrats see this bill as a golden opportunity to renew their push for a proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to unilaterally restructure home mortgages for those facing bankruptcy. Such a measure failed earlier this year when it was included in a larger housing bill because Republicans balked at granting the power to bankruptcy judges. But now that the federal government is poised to assume responsibility for hundreds of billions in bad debt, Democrats see a good selling point in pitching the idea that consumers should get a break, too."

• Social spending and infrastructure funds. The most liberal Democrats are pushing to have an economic stimulus package — with unemployment extensions, infrastructure spending and aid to states — tacked on to the bill.

Democrats eye bailout ??? and more - Yahoo! News

So now, it's okay to be irresponsible and NOT pay your bills, because why? "change" is on the way to help you.

Was there NO RESPONSIBILITY required of the banks Navy?

When we got our first mortgage, we had no money to put down on it, but my husband had served in the Military and was able to get us a VA mortgage with no money down....

And Bank of America sat down with us and told us what we could afford to buy...

They took our salaries, our debt, and our assets and figured out what we could qualify for in a mortgage....based on a percentage of our income/debt ratio....our total debt including the mortgage we wanted to take out, could not exceed 37% of our total income and our credit card, unsecured debt could not be larger than 27% of our income....

If the bank had not taken these steps to go over this with us, matt and I would have never known what we could safely afford.

Don't you think the banks should have informed those borrowing what they could afford? don't you think they should have asked for proof of what they were making and what their debt was as they did to me and matt back in 1998?

Why did the banks decide that they no longer required this info from anyone that wanted to borrow and RISK their stock holders money on such high risks?

Honestly, as a business person, this absolutely makes NO BUSINESS SENSE to me....

i think there were some people that UNDERSTOOD what their risks were, but i believe for the most part, many of these people trusted that the banks would not loan money to them, inshich they could not afford.

And most could afford the fixed rate of the adjustable mortgage in which the banks put them in, it wasn't until THEY COULD NOT GET a conventional mortgage when the adjustable rate started jumping higher than the sky that they could not afford their mortgages....they were promised by all of these institutions and realtors that they could refinance when the adjustable fix was up 3 years later....? only, it didn't turn out that way....the conventional mortgages were hard to come by for them...probably because our government had continued their deficit borrowing trend and were eating up the world's available money is my best guess....though i am not certain....???

many of these homeowners were clueless on the true consequences of the kind of loans the banks gave them and i really do not blame them, at least not in total, because even matt and I were cluless when we got our first mortgage....we trusted the bank to tell us what we could afford and what they were willing to lend us....though i will say, that we purchased a home at least $150k less in value than what we qualified for because we did not want to be mortgage strapped and wanted to be able to afford a mortgage if only one of us had a job and income....

these banks were heavily advertising in low income areas also, they were almost predators or were predators on those that did not understand or know what truely was going on imo....

screwing those homeowners while bailing out the very institutions that were NEGLEGENT to their stock holders and to their loan applicants is unethical...imo.

care

 

[Navy1960]

I was listening to O'Reilly on the radio today and he said something that I think is absolutely true...the entire 1st term of the next president will be entirely dedicated to cleaning up this mess. There will be no tax cuts or healthcare or entitlement spending or new weapon devolopement. Whether it be Obama or McCain all they will be able to fund is the WOT and these bailouts.

That thought hit me the other day, there is simply no way, any entitlement programs or defense programs are going to go forward without fixing this first. Another thing to consider here too, if this goes through, if someone is proposing a tax cut , and I mean any sort of tax cut they are simply dreaming.

 

[Jon]

many of these homeowners were clueless on the true consequences of the kind of loans the banks gave them and i really do not blame them

Therein lies the truth. These borrowers (not homeowners, because the banks owned their houses) were clueless. Period. It's their own faults. If you believe a snake oil salesman, you suffer the consequences. It's the same thing I'm going to tell you in four years if Obama is elected.

 

[Care4all]

Therein lies the truth. These borrowers (not homeowners, because the banks owned their houses) were clueless. Period. It's their own faults. If you believe a snake oil salesman, you suffer the consequences. It's the same thing I'm going to tell you in four years if Obama is elected.

I totally DISAGREE....with our banking laws and regulatory systems there is an UNSAID but known confidence in our banks to do the right thing and inform them of the consequences and to not loan more money to people who could not afford it....

they are not fricking loan sharks, they were SUPPOSEDLY A REGULATED industry where loan sharking is PROHIBITED....

 

[Navy1960]

Was there NO RESPONSIBILITY required of the banks Navy?

When we got our first mortgage, we had no money to put down on it, but my husband had served in the Military and was able to get us a VA mortgage with no money down....

And Bank of America sat down with us and told us what we could afford to buy...

They took our salaries, our debt, and our assets and figured out what we could qualify for in a mortgage....based on a percentage of our income/debt ratio....our total debt including the mortgage we wanted to take out, could not exceed 37% of our total income and our credit card, unsecured debt could not be larger than 27% of our income....

If the bank had not taken these steps to go over this with us, matt and I would have never known what we could safely afford.

Don't you think the banks should have informed those borrowing what they could afford? don't you think they should have asked for proof of what they were making and what their debt was as they did to me and matt back in 1998?

Why did the banks decide that they no longer required this info from anyone that wanted to borrow and RISK their stock holders money on such high risks?

Honestly, as a business person, this absolutely makes NO BUSINESS SENSE to me....

i think there were some people that UNDERSTOOD what their risks were, but i believe for the most part, many of these people trusted that the banks would not loan money to them, inshich they could not afford.

And most could afford the fixed rate of the adjustable mortgage in which the banks put them in, it wasn't until THEY COULD NOT GET a conventional mortgage when the adjustable rate started jumping higher than the sky that they could not afford their mortgages....they were promised by all of these institutions and realtors that they could refinance when the adjustable fix was up 3 years later....? only, it didn't turn out that way....the conventional mortgages were hard to come by for them...probably because our government had continued their deficit borrowing trend and were eating up the world's available money is my best guess....though i am not certain....???

many of these homeowners were clueless on the true consequences of the kind of loans the banks gave them and i really do not blame them, at least not in total, because even matt and I were cluless when we got our first mortgage....we trusted the bank to tell us what we could afford and what they were willing to lend us....though i will say, that we purchased a home at least $150k less in value than what we qualified for because we did not want to be mortgage strapped and wanted to be able to afford a mortgage if only one of us had a job and income....

these banks were heavily advertising in low income areas also, they were almost predators or were predators on those that did not understand or know what truely was going on imo....

screwing those homeowners while bailing out the very institutions that were NEGLEGENT to their stock holders and to their loan applicants is unethical...imo.

care

Care I think if you read some of my other posts you will see I am not saying the banks don't have an equal part in this mess. However, as a homeowner, which by rights will be or should be one of the largest purchases in your entire life, there should be some room there for people to have a little knowledge about what they are doing in the process. I too have a VA loan , so know how the process works. However, I still knew that the home I purchased as to the amount of income I made i.e. monthly would fit in my budget. I will give you an example, lets say a couple looks at a home that was 300,000.00 and they make 35,000.00 a year. They got a 3 year ARM to get in and were happy because they were paying 650.00 a month for three years , then in the 4th year their payments went up to 1917.00 a month. Which is the actual reflection of what the homes original value was., so as a buyer, hey were responsible for knowing that the income they brought in could afford the home they purchased. Now while it's a given that from a marketing standpoint and lending standpoint these lenders were out there handing these things out like popcorn. However, in the end, its the buyer that is the one should be aware of what that are doing.

Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware".[1] Generally caveat emptor is the property law doctrine that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing.