Americans split on homeowner bailout - poll

wvufan2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't make a lot of money and I have two mortgages. I pay both of them. Yes my money is strapped tight and we don't eat like we use to. A lot of my bills are going unpaid, but I am not asking for any "handout". If I needed the help, it would be there. I got burnt really bad by the bank I went through for my loan. I will end up owing more than $20,000 more than the home is worth. Our previous home was flooded and FEMA bought it. We had very little time to find another home in our price range. The bank took advantage of the situation and we are left to pay for it. Yes, we didn't have to sign the papers, but I didn't want my kids to be left on the streets. I think it is a great idea to help people in need. They need to look at a lot of different things before they are willing to help "bailout" people that need it.

I fully understand some people had no choice but to get these loans out of necessity. My opposition is to those that committed fraud/identity theft to obtain these loans and now will further gain by this bail-out.

Are you the one that had a Flood Cert stating your property was not in a flood zone?

No_oil_4_u wrote:

<quoted text>Please provide the proper details previousy requested to support your posts. Clearly your posts are just socialistic rants that apparently have no merit other than to troll forums like these

I'll tell you what. Just give me your email address. I have a close friend who works for the US Internal Revenue Service, and I'll have him personally mail all the pertinent statutes about tax evasion to you! Better yet, since you have stated that you intend to leave the country rather than pay taxes, maybe I can even convince him to pay you a personal visit!

Dakota wrote:

<quoted text>
I fully understand some people had no choice but to get these loans out of necessity. My opposition is to those that committed fraud/identity theft to obtain these loans and now will further gain by this bail-out.
Are you the one that had a Flood Cert stating your property was not in a flood zone?

Yes I am. I still can't find a lawyer that will take this case. Most of them around here, either do work for them or are friends with someone. Most of them want $2000-$3000 down to work with. That would totally wipe out our savings that is in a money market account. It earns good interest, but you can't put money back into it. So, I don't know what to do. Any suggestions?

WizeOne wrote:

<quoted text> I'll tell you what. Just give me your email address. I have a close friend who works for the US Internal Revenue Service, and I'll have him personally mail all the pertinent statutes about tax evasion to you! Better yet, since you have stated that you intend to leave the country rather than pay taxes, maybe I can even convince him to pay you a personal visit!

Gawd, another loser posting. No IRS agent is going to come knocking at my door. Better yet, you post your data and I will forward it to the IRS. The Department of the Treasury has strong feelings about people using its agencies as threats by morons on the internet. By the way, emigrating to another country to become a citizen is not against the law. You morons can't even figure out how to tax people that live illegally within your borders anyway. Moron

wvufan2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I am. I still can't find a lawyer that will take this case. Most of them around here, either do work for them or are friends with someone. Most of them want $2000-$3000 down to work with. That would totally wipe out our savings that is in a money market account. It earns good interest, but you can't put money back into it. So, I don't know what to do. Any suggestions?

The Mortgage companies I worked for hire an outside company to do the Flood Certs. Many times there is a discrepancy between the Flood Cert & the Flood information on the Appraisal. We have always been told to go off the Flood cert because if they are wrong, they insure the information and are liable.........

Do you still have a copy of the Flood Cert & have you gone to the Attorney General in your State?

Here is a sample agreement between the Lender and the Flood Cert Company....scroll down to indemnification.....
http://sec.edgar-online.com/1998/06/25/17/000...

As I said this is just a sample. Also, if you still have the papers from when you closed on this loan, did your lender give you a form concerning whether or not your property was in a flood zone?

I am going to do a little more research and I will keep checking this forum.....

Dakota wrote:

<quoted text>
The Mortgage companies I worked for hire an outside company to do the Flood Certs. Many times there is a discrepancy between the Flood Cert & the Flood information on the Appraisal. We have always been told to go off the Flood cert because if they are wrong, they insure the information and are liable.........
Do you still have a copy of the Flood Cert & have you gone to the Attorney General in your State?
Here is a sample agreement between the Lender and the Flood Cert Company....scroll down to indemnification.....
http://sec.edgar-online.com/1998/06/25/17/000...
As I said this is just a sample. Also, if you still have the papers from when you closed on this loan, did your lender give you a form concerning whether or not your property was in a flood zone?
I am going to do a little more research and I will keep checking this forum.....

Yes I do still have the paper work! I also went to the bank and got a printout of the flood determination. I went to the FEMA office here and he showed me on the map, that it has been in a flood zone since 1983. The bank lender and the man we bought this house from are really good friends. They both told us that the area had been redetermined that it wasn't in a flood zone. Thank you for your further research. Hope to hear back soon!!!

I'll see your 'wrong' and raise you two:

Don't you think you'd rather start with Nixon dropping the Gold Standard, which took the official exchange rates from whatever ($25-30/oz for gold) and put it into the open market, where Gold rose to around 250-300/oz, and thus depreciated the USD?

AND it wasn't the interest rates that directly caused the S&L scandal: it was specifically J Baker III, as Sec'y Treasury who advised Reagan, in the '84 election cycle, I recall, NOT TO bail out (which means: important! forcing the colleague banks to raise $4 billion in funds to bail out) the Continental Illinois Bank.

Snowball city: with its failure, the haemorrhaging began.

Thus Specific Republican acts, which could have quashed the problem with 4 billion in banker money, were allowed to ruin the US housing market for years...

But I take heart that you agree implicitly that Hoover did the same 'banker-friendly' business, as has dear DUMB GW...

Also we should both thank Volker for his guidance, in solving the 80s problem of inflation... he did a LOT more than the WIN buttons Jerry Ford offered to the world (BWAAAaaaahahahaha)

anytime...

ZENhere

Dakota wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong....it was the policies of Carter that led to fixed interest rates of over 20% in the early '80's. There were similar problems under Clinton.....this issue crosses party lines and can not be blamed on any one party.

no-U.4.oil?

man! you deserve the WRONG-WRONG award of the day... because you just dissed the last really, truly great General-Warrior-Republican-Pre sident of the modern era.

Eisenhower said:

"From GW Bush to the Fifth Dimension"
http://crystelzenmud.blogspot.com/2008/01/fro...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

++++++++++

Careful, friend: you may lose your lock-step Conservative status if you keep making such egregious errors in the future...

ZENwrote

No_oil_4_u wrote:

<quoted text>I am so sick of the old often used argument by the socialists "what about the children." It is the most common line used by socialists to justify more welfare spending on a regular basis. It is now even used to justify more welfare for crack mothers to get more funds to feed their drug habit. Its just an old over used worn out line that means nothing. Here is an answer. The parents didn't care about the children so why should I? Send them to an orphanage, adoption agency or start up new ones. By the way, before you start the standard rant about me, I really don't care. Heard it before and probably will again.

wvufan2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I do still have the paper work! I also went to the bank and got a printout of the flood determination. I went to the FEMA office here and he showed me on the map, that it has been in a flood zone since 1983. The bank lender and the man we bought this house from are really good friends. They both told us that the area had been redetermined that it wasn't in a flood zone. Thank you for your further research. Hope to hear back soon!!!

Just curious, when did you buy that home.....the laws in WV changed in regard to this issue that required lenders to notify borrowers if there was any changes in the flood determination.....

ZENmud wrote:

I'll see your 'wrong' and raise you two:
Don't you think you'd rather start with Nixon dropping the Gold Standard, which took the official exchange rates from whatever ($25-30/oz for gold) and put it into the open market, where Gold rose to around 250-300/oz, and thus depreciated the USD?
AND it wasn't the interest rates that directly caused the S&L scandal: it was specifically J Baker III, as Sec'y Treasury who advised Reagan, in the '84 election cycle, I recall, NOT TO bail out (which means: important! forcing the colleague banks to raise $4 billion in funds to bail out) the Continental Illinois Bank.
Snowball city: with its failure, the haemorrhaging began.
Thus Specific Republican acts, which could have quashed the problem with 4 billion in banker money, were allowed to ruin the US housing market for years...
But I take heart that you agree implicitly that Hoover did the same 'banker-friendly' business, as has dear DUMB GW...
Also we should both thank Volker for his guidance, in solving the 80s problem of inflation... he did a LOT more than the WIN buttons Jerry Ford offered to the world (BWAAAaaaahahahaha)
anytime...
ZENhere
<quoted text>

Sir, you do not know as much as you claim, however you are entitled to your opinion. As I stated in my post both parties are responsible and I stand with what I say and Carter policies lead to the 20%+ interest rates.....

Dakota wrote:

<quoted text>
Just curious, when did you buy that home.....the laws in WV changed in regard to this issue that required lenders to notify borrowers if there was any changes in the flood determination.....

June 8th will make 2 years. I hope I still have time, please let me know if you find anything!

I didn't 'Claim', I stated facts.

Facts that gave me an A in my Masters course on US Monetary Systems and Banking, in a paper about ContILL, entitled 'TBTF: Too Big To Fail'... and the grade was given from the Chair of the Department... so that which what you insinuated, I strongly take exception, and object.

I agree that both parties have responsibilities, but you cannot deny that Baker III told Reagan, when he was Sec'y of Treasury, NOT to encourage a private solution, that would take money FROM bankers, and BAIL OUT one of their own...

If you want to learn about Continental Illinois' rise from obscurity to the seventh leading bank in the USA (A story predating ENRON, but touching many of the same points...), feel free to wiki-fy yourself for a weekend... we can continue this.

You don't know me, I don't know you. I have repeated stated on these fora, that Clinton 'was lucky' that his economics, mostly bipartisan comprimises, were greatly enhanced by the unique rise of the KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY, concurrent with his two administrations...

So I accord myself the right, to also DENY that it was Carter's fault (not in the same way RepubliCANTs deny ANYTHING Bush is responsible for), when vast economic changes were wrought worldwide, simply due to Nixon's removal of the Bretton Woods system...

Now remind me what it is that you perceive that I do 'not know as much'?

You are entitled to your opinion, you have the RIGHT to share it: expect people that believe that they know MORE ON THAT SUBJECT, to interject FACTS that you didn't put into evidence...

Sayonara, from Neuchatel

zenHERE

Dakota wrote:

<quoted text>
Sir, you do not know as much as you claim, however you are entitled to your opinion. As I stated in my post both parties are responsible and I stand with what I say and Carter policies lead to the 20%+ interest rates.....

This is the COLD HARD FIGURES for the govt’s WARM FUZZY GIFT to IRRESPONSIBLE BORROWERS.---------

Govt is offering these borrowers Mortgage rate of 3%( 1st 5 years ), goes up by 1% each year until it reaches the rate at that time – which I will assume to be 6.5%.--------

Rate of return on investments in the market = 7%( conservative estimate by me ).--------

A) If loan = 100,000, then IT IS LIKE GIVING THESE BORROWERS A GIFT OF $ 16,700 in TODAY’S DOLLARS ( compared to responsible borrowers who borrow at 6.5 % fixed for 30 years ).--------

B) If loan = 200,000, then IT IS LIKE GIVING THESE BORROWERS A GIFT of $ 33,600 in TODAY’S DOLLARS and so on.---------

Question : 1) Will this cause 1ST TIME HOME BUYERS TO ASK FOR THE SAME GIFT FROM GOVT. or else ------ 2) Will this cause SHOPPERS, ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVE ONES TO BE OUTRAGED ENOUGH THAT THEY SPEND MUCH LESS THIS WINTER.---------

Once you give HANDOUTS TO UNDESERVING PEOPLE, it creates a CHAIN REACTION whereby EVERYBODY EXPECTS such handouts or else …… I have no problem adjusting the rates to 6.5%( current rate ), BUT TO GO BELOW THAT TO KEEP PEOPLE IN HOME IS REALLY A SLAP IN THE FACE OF MOST RESPONSIBLE BORROWERS. Remains to be seen how they react to this.---------

For people with time and patience, here are the details of my numbers.

The responsible fixed rate borrower pays 632 per month.---------

The IRRESPONSIBLE borrower by getting this deal from the govt saves $ 210 per month for 1st 5 years, 163/month for next year and so on. All this money when invested every month at 7% rate of return amounts to 127,000 after 30 years which is 16,700 in today’s dollars ( meaning 16,700 will become 127,000 after 30 years at 7% rate of return.). This is for a loan of 100,000. For bigger loans, just multiply this.

1) Moral of the story - STOP PAYING MORTGAGE and YOU WILL BE HELPED. What a nice Uncle we all have.-------

2) INVESTORS can keep MOVING their PRIMARY RESIEDENCE from one troubled house to another and MILK this system.-----

3) GREAT opportunity to MILK THE BANKRUPTCY system is coming once Obama takes office.----

4) A lot of homeowners will probably take a chance BY STOP PAYING MORTGAGES. If HELP ARRIVES FIRST - fine. If FORECLOSURE ARRIVES first - they will pay the payments they withheld and avoid foreclosure.