Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I can only go by what I have seen with my own eyes and I have seen people who did not qualify for a standard loan, because they were self employed, get approved for an ARM.

For the exact same payment amount?  I just do not believe that.

That is, of course, your choice.  I have, however, seen it with my own eyes.  You will forgive me if I believe what I have seen over what you have chosen not to believe.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
As to the illegal immigrants part, if that is even true, who is to blame?

The people who promised to pay back the money they borrowed, perhaps?

Now who is being naive?  Remember, we are talking illegal immigrants here.  By definition, they are law breakers.  Why would anybody trust them with a loan of several hundred thousand dollars?  In these cases, the lender is to blame.


Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
If you're "not buying that", there is only one explanation.  You do not understand the the world of credit as well as you seem to think you do.  A dramatic reduction in bottom line profits which your proposal would cause, would have dried up lending to that company in a skinny minute.  The only way to make up the difference would have been to try to sell the "good" mortgages which would simply exacerbate their situation.

I never said it was an ideal solution.  What I said was it was a better alternative to what they have now.  How much do you think they are being loaned now?  I am fairly sure that dry spell has hit full force.  With my proposal they would, at the very least, have a positive cash flow and no devalued homes on the books.

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Health insurance is readily available, Dannae. You are responsible to provide for you and yours, not ME or any other US taxpayer. I hate to be crass but we have to make choices in life, and PRIORITIZE, you have chosen DVDs over Health Insurance, and you want to take from my pocket so that you can continue with your strange priorities. I DON"T THINK SO.

What Obama really appeals to is though of us who want OTHERS to assume the responsibility for their lives because they don't want to. I d not wish to disparage you, but your collection is large enough to have been able to purchase probably about FOUR years of insurance on YOU, less if there is more than you, but even at that probably THREE years. It's all abouut personal choices and responsibility, Dannae.

Skip

Skip this is outrageous. You do not know this user nor anything about his personal circumstances. How dare you to come up with ANY judgement on this user? 

Easy, Joe, the user made the comments i addressed...not me. It was Danne who said "I would rather have the care available and rationed, since I - and a number of the people I know - have NOTHING now....not me. She admoits she has no insurance and wants into MY pocket to give her "free" healthcare, yet she has somewhere around $15,000 worth of DVDs, I call that misplaced priorities. She would prefer to buy DVDs than provide for her healthcare. I am supposed to feel pity for this behavior and dig into my pockets so she can have healthcare...I don't think so.

I will as I have for nearly 40 years provide my OWN healthcare, I will NOT have anyone in government nor any taxpayer dictate whether I live or die, when I am 85 years old and ...that is not their job, it is my job and my responsibility. I will check out of the hpotel when I am ready, not when some bureaucrat somewhere decides. How dare that user suggest that I (or any other taxpayer) am responsible for his/her or healthcare. I help take care of not only myself and my wife, but my step-daughter and her family of 6 (when needed) and every other member of my wife's family (when needed). Not the US Government and my fellow taxpayers, ME. So please excuse me if I take offense at not only your cpmment, but the commenrt of any user with like-minded ideas. I am not responsible for you...YOU are.

That is my opinion, Mr. thought police and I am entitled to it and it is NOT for you to say otherwise...BY ANY MEANS. I resent both the idea that the user wishes to continue with misplaced priorities on the backs of the American taxpayer AND the attempts to deny me my freedom to speak my mind and voice my opinion.

But, sugar, thank you for playing anyway.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the mortgage companies should have just unilaterally decided not to enforce the terms of the mortgage agreement?  Are you aware of the fact that a large percentage of people who default on their loans NEVER contact the bank (mortgage company) to try to work out a mutual agreement, many of whom in this case were illegal immigrants who just went home.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Do you have some data to back up these claims?  I am aware of the fact that ALL of the people I know, who lost their homes, tried to work out a deal with the lenders.  Not a single one got a favorable response.  They were simply told to pay or go into foreclosure.  They couldn't pay, so they chose foreclosure.

HERE are some interesting facts you might want to review.

O.k., I read the information from that link  There is nothing in there that indicates "that a large percentage of people who default on their loans NEVER contact the bank."  It does say that homeowners fail to contact their lender because they are embarrassed, but doesn't say what percentage.

In addition, there is nothing in there about illegal immigrants. 

I appreciate you giving me permission to believe what I wish.  I reiterate that I do not believe any lender would force someone into an ARM with a certain payment while denying them a conventional loan with the exact same payment.  What happens is that people cannot qualify for the loan amount that they want under a conventional mortgage, but they can qualify for that same loan amount under an ARM because their payments are lower.  So they sign right up without doing the necessary due diligence.

The stats state that 6 out of 10 mortgagees are not aware of the options available from the mortgagor once they are facing foreclosure.  Now it just may be me, but that indicates to me that they are not talking!  That would be 60% if you need help with the math (a large percentage)!

Hi Guys,

Skip - Good for you helping your family in time of need While ultimately individuals are responsible for, every aspect of there lives. Governments have certain duties obligation, to perform for its citizens. We have no arguments with government highways etc, government also has the dutiy to protect the citizens, ergo military. Our society, the collective wisdom citizens, agree that helping, people less fortunate is a noble cause. This is price, you & I pay yo live in what we call a civilized society. Accept it & move on. Or you could try to change the values of the entire populace. Get back to me on that let me know it goes

Hal - another area consumers are ripped off is auto repair. I'm thinking all those poor people who failed to due "do diligence" got ripped off, like car repair, but with home loans loan value is much higher. Because the public viewed 'auto repair' as ripe with rip-off potential, oversight was instituted. To bad a watch dog group, let all the foreclosures happen.

Take Care
Rico

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
That is my opinion, Mr. thought police and I am entitled to it and it is NOT for you to say otherwise...BY ANY MEANS. I resent both the idea that the user wishes to continue with misplaced priorities on the backs of the American taxpayer AND the attempts to deny me my freedom to speak my mind and voice my opinion.

Skip

Yes, you are entitled to you opinion. However, if you continue to personally discredited other user I will step in and tell you very clearly that I think this is an unacceptable behaviour.

And this is no playing, I am dead serious 

Sugarjoe, you may well be angry but Skip is right on the mark here.  He is not "personally discrediting" someone when he comments that this poster says she is unable to affort health care while having a DVD collection worth around $15,000.  (I haven't looked at the poster's profile to verify the $15,000 figure, but I assums Skip has.)  It is grossly unfair for someone who makes a personal choice to work in a field with no health care to expect the government (read us, everyone else) to pay for the health care that he/she cannot "afford."  In her own words she says she chooses to work where she does -- without health care.  So be it.  But don't then expect the rest of us to foot the bill for her.

I agree that there are people in the society who are through no fault of their own unable to afford health care insurance.  (It's insurance that they don't have access to, not the health care itself, BTW.)  But based strictly on what this person posted she doesn't fit this category.  She CHOOSES to work where she does.  So when she publicly makes those statements she opens herself to having someone express a contrary opinion.  All Skip is doing is commenting that she is suffering the consequence of her own life choice.

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
He is not "personally discrediting" someone when he comments that this poster says she is unable to affort health care while having a DVD collection worth around $15,000. 

I do not know this user. I don't assume anything. You do. And I find this dicrediting since you may do this user wrong.

According to the definition of the word discredit, it is she who has done herself harm. In turn, now you are doing it to yourself as well.

Quote:
discrediting

Main Entry:    dis·cred·it
Pronunciation:    \(?)dis-'kre-d?t\
Function:    transitive verb
Date:    1559

1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : disbelieve <discredit a rumor>
2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of <a discredited theory>
3 : to deprive of good repute : disgrace <personal attacks meant to discredit his opponent>

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but when you post personal information in a forum such as this, you take your chances and open yourself to a certain degree of ridicule.

By "championing" her cause, you have made her post the main topic of the last two pages. If you hadn't, this little sideline would likely have died very quickly.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

I appreciate you giving me permission to believe what I wish.  I reiterate that I do not believe any lender would force someone into an ARM with a certain payment while denying them a conventional loan with the exact same payment.  What happens is that people cannot qualify for the loan amount that they want under a conventional mortgage, but they can qualify for that same loan amount under an ARM because their payments are lower.  So they sign right up without doing the necessary due diligence.

Call me a liar again.   As I said, I have seen this first hand, but don't let that little fact get in the way of your belief.

Quote:
The stats state that 6 out of 10 mortgagees are not aware of the options available from the mortgagor once they are facing foreclosure.  Now it just may be me, but that indicates to me that they are not talking!  That would be 60% if you need help with the math (a large percentage)!

Nice try at being condicending but that isn't what the stat says.  The stat says that "more than 6 in 10 homeowners delinquent in their mortgage payments are not aware of services that morgage lenders can offer" them.  You have no idea what they know once they face foreclosure.  You have made an assumption, based on a 3 year old poll of 2,031 people, in order to bolster your opinion.

And, again, there is nothing in there about illegal immigrants.  Where are the stats to back up that claim? 

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
The user's profile shows 1,166 DVDs.  That is not an assumption on my part.  Clearly this user CHOOSES to spend money on DVDs and not on health insurance.  That is not an assumption on my part.

To be fair, we have no idea how that user came into posession of those movies. It's reasonable to assume she bought them, but that doesn't make it any less of an assumption.

KM