Oh Dear God!! Not again

[Mr. Shaman]

So, the previous policy didn't force banks to make loans or refi.

The new policy doesn't force banks to make loans or refi....

But you take issue with my statement anyway? What exactly do you find incorrect or unpalatable about my statement?

Sorry I was wrong. I was to quick with my reply.
This time Obama is going to far. The government has no right to force banks to refinance.

WHAT??

How is the president "forcing banks to refinance"??

Where do people GET this crap???

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Makes me wonder why I bothered all these years to keep my mortgage paid

....And, as-soon-as you're old-enough to drive, you'll be able to park, there.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How many attempts has he made at this?? He mentioned something about charging banks fees........I was half listening as it makes my stomach hurt to hear him speak.

How 'bout big-words.....do big-words.....

.....make your stomach hurt????

 

[Mr. Shaman]

0bama is going to force banks to refinance mortgages for folks that are underwater with their home values.

Isn't this what happened the first time?? And what about those homeowners that don't have jobs and are making their house payments from their savings and borrowing from family members?? They won't qualify for a mortgage if they don't have a job.

What about those homeowners that have taken part time jobs and are barely squeaking by. If their income will not allow the mortgage repayment they won't qualify for a new loan.

Isn't this how we got in this mess?? The government messing with the lending industry to let people buy houses they couldn't afford.

Mortgage | Homeowner Bill of Rights | Barack Obama | The Daily Caller

What ever happened to the idea that if you cant pay your mortgage you lose the house.

Buying home is a GAMBLE. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

....And, sometimes you get HU$TLED....like during BU$HCO's reign!!!!


*
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2iqmywyiQI[/ame]
*
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaUoa3686RM[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What ever happened to the idea that if you cant pay your mortgage you lose the house.

Buying home is a GAMBLE. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

You live by the consequences of your actions.. NOBODY held a gun to their heads to purchase their houses... You make the contract and the agreement to the terms of the mortgage... you either abide by it or face the consequences.... sorry, that's life

Ah, yes......more o' those (Reagan-style) easy answers.​

 

[8537]

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

I'm not suggesting the repossessing party doesn't have to compensate the owner for the equity - that's part of what would reduce the rent, plus the lender would need to buy out any equity.

And this as an option, where both sides must agree. Obama's idea being another option.

 

[DiamondDave]

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

You live by the consequences of your actions.. NOBODY held a gun to their heads to purchase their houses... You make the contract and the agreement to the terms of the mortgage... you either abide by it or face the consequences.... sorry, that's life

Ah, yes......more o' those (Reagan-style) easy answers.​

Yeah troll.. to hell with personal responsibility when you advocate big nanny government to kiss all your personal boo boos

 

[hortysir]

**** that!

Classic redistribution, there, Karl.

Whatever does that mean, Harry?

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You live by the consequences of your actions.. NOBODY held a gun to their heads to purchase their houses... You make the contract and the agreement to the terms of the mortgage... you either abide by it or face the consequences.... sorry, that's life

Ah, yes......more o' those (Reagan-style) easy answers.​

Yeah troll.. to hell with personal responsibility when you advocate big nanny government to kiss all your personal boo boos

....And, not expect the SAME level of personal responsibility from banks & Wall Street, because they were Too Big To FAIL.

Yeah.....makes a lot o' sense.

Stupid Fuckin' Teabaggers​

 

[syrenn]

I don't disagree! I'd really like to see them take possession and in turn rent to those occupying - which has been done in some areas on a small scale. I'm surprised more banks haven't latched onto the idea in order to protect their assets, but I'm sure they have damn good reason not to (whatever that reason may be...)

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

I'm not suggesting the repossessing party doesn't have to compensate the owner for the equity - that's part of what would reduce the rent, plus the lender would need to buy out any equity.

And this as an option, where both sides must agree. Obama's idea being another option.

Why should the lender buy out the equity?

A montage is nothing more then a rent to own agreement. The equity.rent is the gamble that you lost.

 

[8537]

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

How are you going to pay for it.
And should we reward all those that make poor, or even stupid, decisions?

He already told us, Steven.

He wants us to pay for it.

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

No, you're too stupid to follow the conversation. What I said was that allowing a foreclosure forces the neighbors to pay - in declining home values, a less desirable neighborhood and lost tax revenues.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ah, yes......more o' those (Reagan-style) easy answers.​

Yeah troll.. to hell with personal responsibility when you advocate big nanny government to kiss all your personal boo boos

....And, not expect the SAME level of personal responsibility from banks & Wall Street, because they were Too Big To FAIL.

Yeah.....makes a lot o' sense.

Stupid Fuckin' Teabaggers​

Lets refresh: O voted in favor of the bailout.

 

[8537]

**** that!

Classic redistribution, there, Karl.

Whatever does that mean, Harry?

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

Deflections are cute. Now what exactly did you mean?

 

[8537]

Let's hope that doesn't happen. It would hurt a lot of people. Basically, Big Business stealing from those who cannot fight back. it would hurt the Big Businesses too but they have the resources to last out this recession whereas the individual or family does not.

I would prefer a win-win situation such as what President Obama is suggesting. But, as I said earlier, the Repubs will most certainly filibuster this just because it helps the working class.

I'm not suggesting the repossessing party doesn't have to compensate the owner for the equity - that's part of what would reduce the rent, plus the lender would need to buy out any equity.

And this as an option, where both sides must agree. Obama's idea being another option.

Why should the lender buy out the equity?

A montage is nothing more then a rent to own agreement. The equity.rent is the gamble that you lost.

(1) I didnt' say all of equity, but the owner is entitled to a portion based on the agreement, and rightfullt so.

(2) a mortgage is absolutely, positively NOT a rent-to-own agreement. It's a third party transaction in an exchange, and the person offering the "rental" in this case loses all rights upon execution of the sale.

 

[hortysir]

How are you going to pay for it.
And should we reward all those that make poor, or even stupid, decisions?

He already told us, Steven.

He wants us to pay for it.

People losing their homes is the problem. You don't fix that problem by making more people lose their homes - you exacerbate it. And you make neighbors who ARE making timely payments absorb the cost of the bad decision of others.

No, you're too stupid to follow the conversation. What I said was that allowing a foreclosure forces the neighbors to pay - in declining home values, a less desirable neighborhood and lost tax revenues.

The last sentence in your post I quoted read like a suggestion.

But you still advocate rewarding people that didn't make their mortgage payments by allowing them to make rent payments....

What happens when they don't make their rent?
Turn it into Sec.8 housing and let the government take it over and lower their monthly payment even more thus forcing the rest of us to actually pay for their failure?????

 

[8537]

He already told us, Steven.

He wants us to pay for it.

No, you're too stupid to follow the conversation. What I said was that allowing a foreclosure forces the neighbors to pay - in declining home values, a less desirable neighborhood and lost tax revenues.

The last sentence in your post I quoted read like a suggestion.

But you still advocate rewarding people that didn't make their mortgage payments by allowing them to make rent payments....

How does one equate a bank reaching mutual agreement to rent a property with rewarding people?

What happens when they don't make their rent?

State landlord-tenant law would apply.

 

[hortysir]

No, you're too stupid to follow the conversation. What I said was that allowing a foreclosure forces the neighbors to pay - in declining home values, a less desirable neighborhood and lost tax revenues.

The last sentence in your post I quoted read like a suggestion.

But you still advocate rewarding people that didn't make their mortgage payments by allowing them to make rent payments....

How does one equate a bank reaching mutual agreement to rent a property with rewarding people?

What happens when they don't make their rent?

State landlord-tenant law would apply.

It doesn't punish them, that's for sure.

It sends the message that there's no consequences for your actions....or inactions in this case.

 

[8537]

It doesn't punish them, that's for sure.

It sends the message that there's no consequences for your actions....or inactions in this case.

I see. So you prefer banks act against their own self interest in the name of punishing the people they were dumb enough to lend to?

 

[syrenn]

I'm not suggesting the repossessing party doesn't have to compensate the owner for the equity - that's part of what would reduce the rent, plus the lender would need to buy out any equity.

And this as an option, where both sides must agree. Obama's idea being another option.

Why should the lender buy out the equity?

A montage is nothing more then a rent to own agreement. The equity.rent is the gamble that you lost.

(1) I didnt' say all of equity, but the owner is entitled to a portion based on the agreement, and rightfullt so.

(2) a mortgage is absolutely, positively NOT a rent-to-own agreement. It's a third party transaction in an exchange, and the person offering the "rental" in this case loses all rights upon execution of the sale.

You suggest that the lender buy out the equity.... And the owner is "entitled" ... there in lies the problem. They are entitled to pay for their mortgage... and that's it.


And what agreement is that. I have never seen in any mortgage with an agreement stipulating that if you default on your loan, that you get a portion of your money or equitey back

The agreement is... you default, you lose everything.

No? ... you dont think its more or less a rent to own a property? Think about. You pay every month for the privileged of living in the house you choose and think you can pay for. If you cant pay for it..... you are evicted.

And yes...i know what a mortgage is. I have signed for several.

 

[syrenn]

It doesn't punish them, that's for sure.

It sends the message that there's no consequences for your actions....or inactions in this case.

I see. So you prefer banks act against their own self interest in the name of punishing the people they were dumb enough to lend to?

I would suggest that the banks take the homes and offer them back on the market for sale again.