This must be that free lunch we've heard of
Wayne Dellinger, Westminster
Published September 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Some wise man or woman once said, "There is no such thing as a free lunch," and most Americans would agree.
However, there is a minority of Americans who in the last few years bought a home with no down payment or refinanced their home and took out all of the equity.
Now they face foreclosure because they overextended themselves, can't make their monthly payments and we're expected to feel sorry for them.
They have lost nothing because they had nothing invested. Sure their credit score has been hit, but it may not have been high to begin with and they now have seven to nine months of mortgage payments in their pocket.
It seems to me that if you offered people a single-family home for a good part of the year and agreed to pay them for living there, a lot of people would sign up.
And they did, thinking, "This must be that free lunch we've heard about."
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
September 5, 2008
5:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
It WAS a "Free Lunch" for the speculators that made money off predatory lenging practices, and then moved their money to oil and inflated the costs for working Americans, when that Free lunch dried up.
Thats the reason we.re paying $4.00 at the pump........these clowns have been un-regulated and HAD that "Free Lunch" at the expense of us all.
September 5, 2008
6:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
sschow writes:
Wow, popo, excellent understanding of economics there. You fit every Democrat buzzword into your trite response..."speculators", "predatory lending", "oil", "working Americans", "$4.00 at the pump"
This predatory lending nonsense needs to be put to rest. Mortgage companies act in their own best interest. A foreclosure does not help their bottom line. So what, exactly, would forcing people into foreclosure do for them? Poor people began being lent to after democrats whined about blacks and mexicans receiving less mortgages than whites and Asians. Congress created this beast and will never own up to it. They will only respond with more policy that is doomed to the same failure as the rest of it.
September 5, 2008
6:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
Garbage. Wayne thought up this cute saying, "This must be that free lunch we've heard about" and decided it would look good in a post, even though it has no application. To use his cute saying, Wayne decided to brand those millions of people who are suffering from the mortgage crisis even though he hasn't a clue about their individual situations. I don't think any of those millions thought they were getting something free. Is something free that you have to pay for monthly?
The banks and mortgage companies, which are a great deal more sophisticated than the average home owner, thought this would work and now they are having to pay for their unbridled greed, and millions of home owners are having to pay dearly for putting their faith in that unregulated system. Few people, however sophisticated, saw what was at the end of the tunnel.
September 5, 2008
6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
What about the Bush tax deferrals? We are getting the "benefit" of his tremendous expansion of government and not paying for it. At least not for now, and most of the payment burden is shifted out to future generations. True, it S** to be them, but that's their problem.
September 5, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
I didn't realize the government employees were working for free, SheikYB. FYI, it's Congress that funds things, not the President. Blame them.
Congress wanted more low income home ownership and mandated lowering the qualifications bar. Banks and lenders did what they were told to do and now Congress has a mess that everyone is blaming on the President. How convenient.
September 5, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
MIH - "it's Congress that funds things," - then why are the Bush Tax Deferrals proudly touted as the "BUSH Tax Cuts?" They were initiated by Bush and rubber-stamped by a GOP Congress. Ever hear the expression: The President proposes, and the Congress disposes? So don't worry, I very much blame the spineless Congress of several years ago that bent to Bush's rich-boy's club will.
I didn't realize govt workers worked for free either. Where did you hear that?
September 5, 2008
7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
grandpaw - The buyers all had the same goverment-mandated paperwork which spelled out the interest rate, the monthly payments, and the total cost of the home at the end of the loan. It's on the front page of the paperwork in large letters. People who bought with ARMs did so in the hopes their interest rate wouldn't raise. Those buyers were gamblers, pure and simple, and they lost their bet. Wayne Dellinger is right and I agree with him that those people do not deserve a handout to save them from their own greed or stupidity.
My first house was a HUD home and sat empty for a year before I bought it at a reduced price. The same kind of deal will soon be available to thousands of buyers as the reposessed houses come back on the market at a price 10-25% below the previous sale price. Buyers who couldn't afford a home will now have a great opportunity, and hopefully they have learned that ARMs are not a safe or prudent way to go.
We don't bail out people who lost in the stock market or at a casino, so why bail out housing gamblers?
September 5, 2008
7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
thats_just_me writes:
We will get over this and then we will repeat it again in another twenty to thirty years. Think not? Then remember the housing bust in the late 80's.
September 5, 2008
7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
Acemon: "Buyers who couldn't afford a home will now have a great opportunity, and hopefully they have learned that ARMs are not a safe or prudent way to go."
In other words, hopefully buyers will have learned from the housing crisis that ARMs are dangerous. Unfortunately, the millions who have lost their homes did not have a housing crisis from which to learn.
People like Acemon who judge millions of others, who claim to have the ability to look into the minds of millions of people they don't know a thing about, who don't need to know the particular circumstances under which various people signed mortgages, are grossly arrogant people. People who so irrationally judge millions of people are dangerous. Right now, it is the millions of people who have suffered disaster in the housing market. Who will it be next?
It is interesting to me that neither Dellinger or Acemon mention the financial institutions that have conned the millions, that have assured the millions that they have a good deal, that have dealt the American economy a severe blow from which it is trying to recover, that were driven by raw greed to draw innocent people into their web. No, these two only mention the common folk.
Neither of them mention the deregulation that paved the way for this disaster. No, they only mention the common folk.
Don't need regulation? Perhaps next they will say that we don't need food and drug regulation, that people can just get out their old Gilbert chemistry sets and determine for themselves. The financial market is an extremely complicated one, one that the most expert people in the world obviously did not understand. And these two think that the millions of common folk should have understood?
September 5, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
grandpaw,
Grossly arrogant? Irrationally judging? Dangerous? Ha! Housing and mortgages are already regulated via the Consumer Protection Act in order to help the "common folk" as you call them. Lots of people default on car loans, credit card payments, tax payments, and even personal loans made by friends. How much further should the nanny government protect greedy or unwary consumers? You blithly assume the evil, corporate swindlers are determined to milk every last dime from their customers (raw greed...drawing them into their web?), so who is doing the judging? You. Common folk? What about the affluent people who bought million-dollar estates and McMansions, then shed tears when they defaulted? Do they deserve a handout, too?
Buying a house is not dealing with the "financially market" as you are so pleased to describe it. They're buying a house, period. As I said before, the terms of their loan was in large letters on their paperwork. If you can't afford something, then signing the documents could even be termed fraud.
What does this problem have to do with food and drug regulation? Why not irrationally tie it all to speed limits, murder prosections, or even atheism? Nobody forced anyone to buy a house or sign paperwork. Those who broke the laws should be prosecuted and jailed, but tell us, sage one, how many home buyers were victims of fraud and how many were victims of their own greed.
Where would YOU draw the line? Would you bail out everyone with tax dollars, or do you try to determine who was good or bad? Don't try to paint me as a conservative or evil or heartless. I feel a great deal of empathy for those who were true victims, but the rest (i.e. the majority) need to live with their mistakes. I do, you do, and even Wayne Dellinger has to. I learned from my mistakes and hopefully others will, too.
This is not the first housing crisis. Quite a few areas suffered economic losses during the late 80's and early 90's, but those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat those mistakes. People who buy in the near future now have plenty of examples to learn from.
September 5, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
I am with Acemon on this one
When I bought my house the realtor kept telling me you can afford this or that, get as much house as you can, buy an ARM because you will probably move anyway before it changes. It was very easy for me to see that a $350,000 house was way too expensive for me even though I was approved for $400,000! They were out of their minds. I had so much money on my paycheck after taxes, $350,000 was too much, $275,000 left me plenty to do other things, so I took that. It was my first house I ever bought, I knew nothing about mortgage companies, how houses are appraised, or anything. I knew how much I made after taxes, and bought a house I could afford.....I just don't see how hard that is.
September 5, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Grandpaw is right. Acemon, you are generalizing about a whole lot of people whose circumstances you don't know. You also do not acknowledge the numerous shady practices lenders engage in. I'll briefly mention two: home repair people going door to door (the poor and elderly are good targets) and getting them to put their equity on the line for repair. It's not that difficult to understand that everyone is not a sophisticated consumer, and that we have imbalances of knowledge at play.
Here's another drop in the bucket, and how corporations act. I get solicitations all the time offering to loan my money in exchange for home equity. If they send out a 1000 solicitations, and get 5 responses, who are those 5? Likely, the most desparate, in the hole. In other words, the lenders and casting bait out in search of the most vulnerable consumers.
September 5, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
You're right LFC. But like the others, you're just showing us half the picture. Even if an unsophisticated consumer suspects that the offer is more than he can afford, he has a smart person in a suit in front of him telling him it's okay, and one can further rationalize the transaction by thinking, "They wouldn't lend this money to me if I couldn't afford it". One must all consider the influences of spouses. Bottom line: drop the black and white picture of the irresponsible borrower. Yes, consumers have a responsibility. But the fact is: there's a mortgage crises and consumers didn't all of a sudden become way more irresponsible, and they are not the only parties to the transaction, or the only parties with responsibility for the transaction.
September 5, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Great analogy, Wechasa. Yes, the mortgage crisis has as its base, a lot of carnies, and a lot more marks, and when they are fleeced, the carnies can always rely on: "ya shoulda known better, rube", as they roll on to the next town, and a new set of marks.
September 5, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
rightwingnut writes:
what part of personal responsibility is not understood?
September 5, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I love stupid simplicities. They explain anything, and exclude everything.
September 5, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
rightwingnut asks: "what part of personal responsibility is not understood?"
Is that a question for Bear Sterns?
September 5, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
Anderson-
No, that is the whole picture I just painted for you. My now wife was one who fell into a very bad loan. She flat out said I just trusted him, didn't read, didn't know there was 3 payments she could pay.....even though it was on the stub she sent in every month. It was her fault, and no one else. There was no gun put to her head, no one forged her signature.
We look at what we want and get it even though we shouldn't....look at credit card debt in this country. It is that simple. Everyone should know what they make, and then look at a loan and say yikes or yeah. Yes there are those that truly got in a bad way, like people that got laid off, and can't find another job.
September 5, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
Sheikyurbooty-
I think that should go for our gov't also. Talk about no responsiblity
September 5, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
LFC, your picture is missing the landscape as well as a few details, although I can see your wife in there standing before a very well dressed character who seems to have boat loads of money in his back pocket and, curiously, someone from behind him is stuffing more money in the pocket.
September 5, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
Anderson-
Enough said. You and I see "personal responsibility" differently. I don't see a way out of personal responsibility, and you do. Agreed.
September 5, 2008
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
LFC, I'm all for taking responsibility for my actions and believe others should to. However, that's not in any way the only issue in any given situation. If I stumble over an uneven portion of the sidewalk and fall in front of you and break an ankle because I wasn't looking where I was going, or because I was talking, or because I'm short a few brain cells, I hope you will help me up or call for help instead instead of condemning me for a lack of personal responsbility.
September 5, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
9% of Americans behind in mortgage payments or in foreclosure
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/a...
Jan. 23, 2009
AP--The President of the United States today sharply rebuked Americans for their personal irresponsibility. "You need to get your house in order before you come to me asking that I restore order". Sociologists from the Natl Academy of Sciences recently released a report showing that personal irresponsibility is at an all time high, and on a sharp rise, 15.6% in 2008 v. 4.3% in 2001.
September 5, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
Acemon: "How much further should the nanny government protect greedy or unwary consumers? You blithly assume the evil, corporate swindlers are determined to milk every last dime from their customers (raw greed...drawing them into their web?), so who is doing the judging? You."
I don't know if corporate swindlers should be called evil or not, but I really do feel that they are not very nice people. You disagree?
"Every last dime"? Boy, Acemon, you do get carried away. I say there are a lot of swindlers who have been cheating people buying homes. Try to take a deep breath before you post.
If your typically hyperbolic statement means that you are accusing me of thinking that there has been a lot of mortgage fraud, I plead guilty, joined as I am by just about all intelligent people who have investigated the situation.
What do I base my opinion on? The facts, Acemon, the facts. Not on my emotions and prejudices as some people do.
"Mortgage fraud still soaring
A crackdown on underwriting has failed to halt an explosion of fraudulent home loans.
By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: August 26, 2008: 6:03 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With the housing market in turmoil and lending standards tougher than ever, you'd think that the kind of unscrupulous activity that helped plunge the industry into crisis would be a thing of the past.
You'd be wrong. Mortgage fraud is still soaring, according to a new report from the Mortgage Asset Research Institute (MARI), a division of ChoicePoint. (CPS)"
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and leading lawmakers have called for an overhaul of U.S. financial regulation after lax mortgage lending standards, an onslaught of risky financial products, and falling home prices created a domino effect that resulted in a widespread credit crisis."
"Mortgage fraud in the U.S. has skyrocketed, according to a new report from the Mortgage Asset Research Institute (MARI). The study (which MARI compiled data from the biggest names in the lending industry, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and J.P.MorganChase) found that the number of fraudulent loans issued during the first three months of 2008 jumped 42% from the same period a year ago. “The mortgage industry is currently in a volatile state, as many constituents try to protect themselves from criminals who continue to use these turbulent times as an opportunity to commit new fraud and inflict additional financial damage for our nation’s lenders,” according to the report."
You suggest we don't need more regulation? The mortgage industry disagrees with you.
"The mortgage industry has worked with state and federal officials to develop new laws and regulations that will prevent unfair and inappropriate lending practices in the future."
Continued below.
September 5, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
Continued from above.
"In recent months, the FBI also announced it was already investigating 14 corporations involved in subprime lending as part of its Subprime Mortgage Industry Fraud Initiative launched last year. The companies in question come from the financial services industry, including mortgage lenders and investment banks that bundle loans into securities which are sold to investors. Moreover, back in June, the FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force arrested more than 400 mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers and other industry insiders responsible for more than $1 billion in losses."
I think that one reason for our disagreement is that you apparently don't have time to keep up with current events.
September 5, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Before I address the mortgage situation, let me, as a sociologist take on that stat on "Personal Irresponsibility".
You can count beans, cars, and anything else that comes in discrete units, but "personal irresponsibility"? Please. I know some sociologists love to mix math with their science to the point of absurdity.
First define personal irresponsibility and try not to use 100 thousand words. You can set up some parameters, say default on loans or credit cards and just ignore the individual situations, but all this is opinion masquarading as science. But it always looks good and impresses folks.
It is possible to quantify things such as amount of pain, you may have seen these new methods used in hospitals. And we have all seen the surveys that ask us how satisfied we are with something. Some, a lot, more, completely. Well I am making fun of my own discipline but this personal irresponsibility stat is a hoot.
Who says stuffy scientists lack a sense of humor.
Last month I suffered from or committed personal irresponsibility only 48% of the time, down from an all time high of 78% the month before.
Hope that gave some of you a chuckle.
Oh those predatory, greedy homeowners. Taking advantage of the good hearted, government mandated, banks.
Thankfully the pres saw that bailing out the banks and loan companies would cost his party votes, so he added that the actual homeowners could get some of the bail out. Thank Goddess for election years.
Next, bet we will be bailing out the credit card companies. May they burn in Hell, but only 67% of them.
The new slogan for capitalists: Privatize profits, socalize losses.
September 5, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Anderson - You wrote (referring to me) "you are generalizing about a whole lot of people whose circumstances you don't know." It seems to me you're doing the same. I suggest that most people buying homes were not the elderly or poor. The statistics show more middle class and lower class buyers were victims, rather than the "poor." Yes, there are a lot of shady people out there, but when a deal looks too good to be true, it is. Yes, there were some criminals out there preying on people, but to catagorize all of the home buyers as victims is generalizing as well. As I said before, how do you determine who was victimized and who was simply greedy or overly ambituous?
grandpaw - There's no need for vitriol or veiled insults. You claim that that I was carried away, yet in your original post you said that lenders "were driven by raw greed to draw innocent people into their web." I'd call that exaggeration. I agree that swindlers are evil scum, but can't you agree that many buyers were greedy and now are victims of their own behavior? Do you truly feel everyone who lost their home was an innocent babe targeted by fraudulent bankers? Would you be so kind as to answer one of my questions: Would you bail out everyone with tax dollars, or do you try to determine who was good or bad? Is this the best you can come up with: "...you apparently don't have time to keep up with current events." As many others in these forums will attest, I manage to have civil discussions without resorting to insults. I referred to your statements as "blithly," I referred to you as a "sage," while you tossed around terms such as "arrogant," and "irrational," "dangerous," and obliquely questioned my intelligence. Tsk, tsk. Why not acuse me of having big feet and fat matresses and drive a silly car?
When you're ready to discuss this issue like an adult, let me know. Otherwise I'll ignore your posts and let others reply to your statements.
September 5, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
sschow: "This predatory lending nonsense needs to be put to rest. Mortgage companies act in their own best interest. A foreclosure does not help their bottom line. So what, exactly, would forcing people into foreclosure do for them?"
Let's break this up into two parts.
Part 1: What did giving out so many mortgages do for the lenders?
It created more money. For better or for worse, the gold standard backing up our money is largely symbolic; leveraging/creating money out of loans is increasingly the norm.
Part 2: What have foreclosures done for the lenders?
If home values hadn't dropped, it would have garnered them a hell of a lot more money. In addition to reaping high interest rates and mortgages from homeowners (contrary to this letter writer's assertion these people did not live in their homes for free), the lenders would then own the homes again to resell after the first round of homeowners were forced to go into foreclosure when their rates went up.
You would think the lenders would have had enough foresight to realize this strategy would ultimately backfire as so many homes would end up foreclosed, there would be too much inventory supply and thus, home values would drop. But, they didn't. And they were supposed to be the most financially sophisticated party in the transaction.
I agree some homeowners were irresponsible. But many were not, and in fact, were misled by these lenders. The lenders also preyed on people who certainly weren't financially sophisticated, and that includes the elderly and many first-time homebuyers.
Anyway, ten to one this letter is from an extremist rightwinger. Absolutely no criticism of the lenders whatsoever, only sympathy instead. And, just the usual heaping scorn on American citizens.
Country first???
September 5, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
sschow: "Poor people began being lent to after democrats whined about blacks and mexicans receiving less mortgages than whites and Asians. Congress created this beast and will never own up to it. They will only respond with more policy that is doomed to the same failure as the rest of it."
I will agree that what led to this state of affairs is major deregulation of interest rate policies - and that both libs and conservatives are to blame.
Libs want more people to own homes, conservatives want less regulation on banking/financial markets. So both embraced legislation that would eventually lead to subprime interest instruments.
Back to the drawing board.
September 5, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Correction to my 1:21 post, should just say "in addition to reaping interest rates and mortgages"...instead of "high" interest rates. The initial rates weren't.
September 5, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
acemon writes: "Yes, there were some criminals out there preying on people, but to catagorize all of the home buyers as victims is generalizing as well. As I said before, how do you determine who was victimized and who was simply greedy or overly ambituous?"
No one here that I can see categorized *all* of the home buyers as victims. Obviously, you can't draw a black line b/t "victims" and "greed" and I think that sort of categorization is useless anyway. Now that you've acknowledged some shady characters are involved, perhaps you can also acknowledge the magnitude of the housing problem--which is why action is being taken.
September 5, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
Anderson-
No problem, I help people for a living that do that.....and even when I am not on the job. But don't expect me to start giving you money because you ran up your bills so high you can now only pay your car payment, but not your credit card bill for the month of september. Not a good example Anderson.
September 5, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
LFC, some other posters have touched on the larger problems--it's not just about absolving some homeowners of their debt.
--a housing crisis threatens the whole economy--not just the homeowners in question. Doesn't that mean something to you that Treasury and Congress is concerned?
--empty houses tend to bring crime and lower values to the neighborhood;
--widespread suffering calls for relief.
September 5, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
anderson - Yes, you're correct that nobody here has categorized all home buyers who lost their homes as victims. I try not to make generalizations but sometimes fail. I have always acknowleged there are swindlers and con artists. I also acknowlege the magnitude of the problem, but as always happens with data, sometimes the figures are exaggerated. You wrote that 9% of people are behind on payments or in forclosure. For the sake of discussion I'm willing to accept that number, but during an average year what is the percentage of forclosures? 4% or 5%? I'm not certain, but to me it looks like amount of failures may only be up 4 or 5%, which admittedly is double the previous amount, but when the economy suffers a downturn, as it did in the late 80's, won't more people will lose their homes anyway as opposed to boom times? However, my primary question still stands: how do you determine who was victimized and who was simply greedy or overly ambituous? I'm MORE than willing to help those who were victims, or lost their home due to illness or traumatic circumstances, but those who overreached or were greedy deserve nothing.
September 5, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Yes, more foreclosures go w/an economic downturn. I don't know enough to put 9% into perspective but I do know, and point again, to the economists and to Treasury. They are very concerned, probably in large part because the big lenders are in trouble more than concern over Joe Homeowner. I haven't followed the legislation close enough to know who's getting relief and who isn't, but it's kind of like any other benefit program: do you design it to relieve the problem or do you design it to maximize assurance that no one who is not absolutely entitled to relief gets any? I see a big problem in need of a solution, and the solution that says, "That's tough, Joe" is not satisfactory.
September 5, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Isn't the main solution for homeowners in this situation just to change the payment arrangement to one they can meet? It's not like they are getting a free lunch. They are simply dealing with an interest rate that is now in the realm of reality.Anyway, that's my understanding of what has been done for them.
And I'm fine with that because I don't want to see people out on the streets if they are making an honest goodwill effort to pay for their homes and are making their payments on time.
On the other hand, I have no desire to see housing prices continue to inflate, so let's not get carried away with the bail-out. Make mortgages harder to get again, by all means. It does everyone a favor.
September 5, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Speculators? Fraudulent lending practices?
Democrat Chris Dodd, Democrat Kent Conrad, and Obama's campaign manager Jim Johnson all received subsidized loans from CountryWide Mortgage on their multimillion dollars worth of 'loans'.
And the same bunch voted in favor of the Democrat controlled Congress' bill that put taxpayers on the hook for outfits like CountryWide Mortgage's financial problems.
So when you hear ignorant posters whine about "speculators" or others.... just remember that they're trying to cover up for the actions of the Democrat fatcats who cook the books to save themselves money, while passing the risk on to taxpayers.
September 5, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I believe you're right about the main solution mytwosense--I had forgotten. And I agree, that it sounds reasonable and it's not a free lunch.
September 5, 2008
4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
So, you think it's time to play the victim card, Acemon? The only victims are the people who have lost their homes and that you accuse of being spendthrift and looking for a free lunch, even though you have no idea of what the facts are that led to their disaster.
Acemon: "grandpaw - There's no need for vitriol or veiled insults."
As I expect you know, something is vitriolic if it is bitter scathing and caustic. Saying you are ill-informed doesn't come close to meeting that test. False accusations of this sort are not vitriolic, but they do lack integrity.
Yes, I think you are arrogant to accuse millions of people you know nothing about of being spendthrifts and looking for a free lunch. And, yes, I think it is irrational and, yes, I think people who bandy about such false accusations against millions of people are dangerous to the workings of our society.
While you seem to have second thoughts about your original shotgun accusation in that you seem now to recognize that all of these mortgagors are not guilty of your accusations, you initially lumped together all people who had mortgages with ARMs:
"grandpaw - The buyers all had the same government-mandated paperwork which spelled out the interest rate, the monthly payments, and the total cost of the home at the end of the loan. It's on the front page of the paperwork in large letters. People who bought with ARMs did so in the hopes their interest rate wouldn't raise. Those buyers were gamblers, pure and simple, and they lost their bet. Wayne Dellinger is right and I agree with him that those people do not deserve a handout to save them from their own greed or stupidity."
You have no problem calling all these people you know nothing about greedy and stupid, but you are offended by my saying that your accusation is arrogant and ill-informed and explaining why I say that.
You, Acemon, are the one who is insulting, and grossly so.
September 5, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
Acemon, sometimes you are funny, although unintentionally so. You say you referred to me as "sage". Your statement was: "tell us, sage one, how many home buyers were victims of fraud and how many were victims of their own greed." You apparently don't recognize your own sarcasm and so try to pass it off as a compliment.
September 5, 2008
7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
I just heard that unemployment has risen to over 6%. The economists say the mortgage problem is now spreading throughout the whole economy.