Govt & the Housing Bubble - Agree/Disagree

[creggur]

Originally Posted by Queen

I think the fundamental difference is illustrated above..."wanting" something and "working" for something is where the disconnect happens. Ad campaigns tell people they DESERVE all the best stuff, predatory lenders help people get it...no one seems to remember the "work for it" part.

Guess I equate wanting with working because that's the only way I've ever gotten anything.

I learned early on about living above my means, and won't repeat that mistake. Took to long to get out from under that mess, and the stress is not worth it.
We follow a pretty simple formula.
1) If I can't afford it I don't buy it. Never finance toys.
2) Pay off the credit card every month, no balance, no interest.
3) Use other peoples money if it's free. If someone offers no interest for xx months I'll use it, but only if I have the money in savings to pay it off if I have to.
4) Never buy new cars.....Let someone else pay the depreciation.
5) We pay bills first, savings 2nd, what's left over is what get's spent on recreation. Sometimes we don't have all the recreation we would like, but I sleep better knowing the bills are paid, and I've put something away for the future/rainy day....

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by creggur

I agree 100%, this is exactly what happened to me. Not making excuses, it was just a matter of lacking experience in dealing with these kinds of things..

If you lacked the experience or knowledge, you should have done the same thing you do with other issues: hire a professional.

If you didn't understand contract law, you should have hired an attorney. For a few hundred bucks, s/he would have looked your deal over and provided you with the insight you needed back then. Justifying a government-backed and taxpayer-funded bailout due to ignorance (of contract law) is ridiculous.

I think the predatory lenders should be hung out to dry, even the borderline ones.

I think that people who sign contracts without understanding them -OR- without hiring an attorney to look over the deal should be held responsible for their choices. We call that "being responsible", and all it takes is a couple hundred bucks to have one look over a contact. If you're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a deal, it's well worth a few hundred bucks for a lawyer.

I think the homeowners who were duped by predatory lenders should be offered a shot at a fixed rate that they can manage OR be allowed to hand the house over to the predators and walk away without yet another hit to their credit status.

Simple yet expensive solution for US taxpayers. Most of these "lenders" are out of business or otherwise out of the picture. This means SOMEONE has to pay for it.

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of watching my money pay for liberal entitlement programs for people who COULD have made better decisions or COULD have hired an attorney for a few hundred bucks. THEIR bad decisions should not be MY problem.

Agree again, the problem is a lot of the predator lendors are going out of business at blazing speeds. Bankruptcy protects them, but leaves their victims holding the bag.....

Most are NOT victims. Less than two percent of all sub-prime loans are delinquent. This means 98% of those loans are being paid on-time and as agreed. AFAIC, the two percent that ARE in trouble made bad choices. If it was purely the fault of 'predatory lenders', then FAR MORE THAN 2% of all sub-prime loans would be delinquent.

All that being said...the greedy folks who got normal (non-predatory) loans and waaaaaay overextended themselves, live off of credit cards, and generally show poor skills at managing their money...tough, live and learn.

So the difference between a victim and an idiot is that a "victim" didn't have money for a down payment (and agreed to a non-conventional loan), while someone who had SAVED for the standard 20% down payment is an idiot? Amazing.

[Queen]

Originally Posted by reservecops

If you lacked the experience or knowledge, you should have done the same thing you do with other issues: hire a professional.

If you didn't understand contract law, you should have hired an attorney. For a few hundred bucks, s/he would have looked your deal over and provided you with the insight you needed back then. Justifying a government-backed and taxpayer-funded bailout due to ignorance (of contract law) is ridiculous.

I think that people who sign contracts without understanding them -OR- without hiring an attorney to look over the deal should be held responsible for their choices. We call that "being responsible", and all it takes is a couple hundred bucks to have one look over a contact. If you're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a deal, it's well worth a few hundred bucks for a lawyer.

Simple yet expensive solution for US taxpayers. Most of these "lenders" are out of business or otherwise out of the picture. This means SOMEONE has to pay for it.

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of watching my money pay for liberal entitlement programs for people who COULD have made better decisions or COULD have hired an attorney for a few hundred bucks. THEIR bad decisions should not be MY problem.

Most are NOT victims. Less than two percent of all sub-prime loans are delinquent. This means 98% of those loans are being paid on-time and as agreed. AFAIC, the two percent that ARE in trouble made bad choices. If it was purely the fault of 'predatory lenders', then FAR MORE THAN 2% of all sub-prime loans would be delinquent.

So the difference between a victim and an idiot is that a "victim" didn't have money for a down payment (and agreed to a non-conventional loan), while someone who had SAVED for the standard 20% down payment is an idiot? Amazing.

I just typed a really long reply to your post, I explained my answers more thoroughly...then I read your post again and realized you don't want to have a conversation about housing, you want to start a liberals v. conservatives thread. Have a good time.

[dallasdivergirl]

When the ex husband and I were looking at house we qualified for twice the house we actually bought just using his income. When we finally bought we picked a house that we could afford on one income if something happened.

We had friends, that were suffering last year, that got the ARM mortgage. I am quite certain that they have lost that house.

The funny thing was, she worked for a bank in the mortgage lending department. I really don't have much sympathy for them. They could have bought a cheaper house and possibly saved themselves tons of heart ache, but I watched them buy a new Scion and be 13k upside down from the previous car. I can't and won't understand that kind of thinking.

I just moved to a smaller cheaper apartment closer to my work. I couldn't be happier and now I can pay for my dive trips with out worrying if I can pay my bills too.

Are there people that got suckered, sure there are and I do feel bad for them. Some people were looking for an easy no money down let's get a house, I don't feel really bad for them.

[georoc01]

I agree on the no money down thing. I could have saved money on my last couple of places going with an ARM, but am glad right now I am locked in where I am. I saved for years get the down payment to avoid the double mortage or mortgage insurance and am glad I did.

However prices in some markets like California can mean never owning a house in your life. And if you were lucky enough to time it and convert, it was a boon.

But those that lost on the timing, lost big time. Its a shame, but it was the gamble they took.

Anyone else hear ads for a 50 year mortgage? Or an interest only home? Seems like a race to ruin eventually.

[creggur]

Originally Posted by reservecops

If you lacked the experience or knowledge, you should have done the same thing you do with other issues: hire a professional.

If you didn't understand contract law, you should have hired an attorney. For a few hundred bucks, s/he would have looked your deal over and provided you with the insight you needed back then. Justifying a government-backed and taxpayer-funded bailout due to ignorance (of contract law) is ridiculous.

Ok I was 22 years old, again not making excuses, just inexperienced. I didn't fall prey to a predatory lender, but made a bad decision to buy more house than I should have. Anytime someone talks to me about buying their first house, I always tell them to take what they "qualify" for and back it off a good bit. We worked through it, payed our bills on time, and ended up making a pretty nice return on the house when the real estate market here boomed.

I was unaware that only 2% of the loans were in default, that does change my thinking considerably. Because if the Govt. did provide a bailout program or some sort of assistance it would get abused like all Govt. welfare programs by people that don't really need the help....

[scuba Widow]

Originally Posted by creggur

Guess I equate wanting with working because that's the only way I've ever gotten anything.

I learned early on about living above my means, and won't repeat that mistake. Took to long to get out from under that mess, and the stress is not worth it.
We follow a pretty simple formula.
1) If I can't afford it I don't buy it. Never finance toys.
2) Pay off the credit card every month, no balance, no interest.
3) Use other peoples money if it's free. If someone offers no interest for xx months I'll use it, but only if I have the money in savings to pay it off if I have to.
4) Never buy new cars.....Let someone else pay the depreciation.
5) We pay bills first, savings 2nd, what's left over is what get's spent on recreation. Sometimes we don't have all the recreation we would like, but I sleep better knowing the bills are paid, and I've put something away for the future/rainy day....

We too equate wanting to working for what you get and have in life....because nothing in life is free.