Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again...
- Thread starter H D
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
People are still getting their houses foreclosed on. Why would ANY bank want to continue this madness?
Here we go again! Just how dumb is this idea when we consider just how close these sub-prime mortgages nearly bankrupted the country...along with the crooked Wall Street financial giants.
:banghead::banghead:
:banghead::banghead:
Mike Dziubina
Well-Known Member
SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! even if its not yours. Seems to be a theme these last 2 years....
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Anyone who hasn't seen it, should go out and watch the documentary "Inside Job", which documents the financial crisis of Fall 2008 and what lead up to it. It was predicted by many. It will happen again if we don't change our ways.
TJR
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
Democratics policies do not work. Vote them all out, as well as the RINOS.
Jerry Gerner 2
Well-Known Member
Huh?, That's been America's motto for as long as I can remember. That's why the country is F'd, yes it's partly the blame of Gov't and credit company's but it all falls on the American people out living their means trying to "Keep up with the Jones".
Insert the rants about this statement if you're oblivious to the economy for the last say "16 years" if not more here ::::
:btddhorse::smack:
Jerry,
I agree with you. The problem now is that most of the American taxpayers have curtailed their spending, and trying to get out of debt. In many cases they cannot get credit anymore, and are forced to try to live within their means. Surveys over the past few years have shown that Americans have sharply reduced their use of credit cards and are not taking on more debt.
Now the problem as I see it, is the governement is trying to Spend it's way out of debt??? Just how dumb does that sound, but it's true....so now they want to raise taxes to pay the huge debt.
The US Government does not have a Revenue problem, they have a Spending problem. Half of the revenue the government receives goes to various Entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security, Veterans, Retirements, etc. The other half is called Discretionary money...and that's were we are throwing our money away.
The sensible American family has to budget their income to meet their expenses. Food, housing, utilities, transportation, etc are things that take up most of the budget. Other things fall into the Discretionary spending area. Things like going out to dinner, or a movie, vacations, a new Flat Panel HDTV, that diamond ring, etc. Sensible people who do not have enough income know that they have to cut their discretionary spending. The governement just seems to borrow more money so they can have more discretionary spending...That makes no sense! Then to make matters worse, they complain about the deficiet that they created.
Both parties are responsible for the debt, Clinton managed to lower the debt. GW Bush raised the debt, but he was also involved in two wars and some devastating hurricanes.
Now Obama comes in and the debt has increased to the point that most people, in their wildest imaginations cannot even conceive or comprehend the amount of our debt.
...Rich
I agree with you. The problem now is that most of the American taxpayers have curtailed their spending, and trying to get out of debt. In many cases they cannot get credit anymore, and are forced to try to live within their means. Surveys over the past few years have shown that Americans have sharply reduced their use of credit cards and are not taking on more debt.
Now the problem as I see it, is the governement is trying to Spend it's way out of debt??? Just how dumb does that sound, but it's true....so now they want to raise taxes to pay the huge debt.
The US Government does not have a Revenue problem, they have a Spending problem. Half of the revenue the government receives goes to various Entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security, Veterans, Retirements, etc. The other half is called Discretionary money...and that's were we are throwing our money away.
The sensible American family has to budget their income to meet their expenses. Food, housing, utilities, transportation, etc are things that take up most of the budget. Other things fall into the Discretionary spending area. Things like going out to dinner, or a movie, vacations, a new Flat Panel HDTV, that diamond ring, etc. Sensible people who do not have enough income know that they have to cut their discretionary spending. The governement just seems to borrow more money so they can have more discretionary spending...That makes no sense! Then to make matters worse, they complain about the deficiet that they created.
Both parties are responsible for the debt, Clinton managed to lower the debt. GW Bush raised the debt, but he was also involved in two wars and some devastating hurricanes.
Now Obama comes in and the debt has increased to the point that most people, in their wildest imaginations cannot even conceive or comprehend the amount of our debt.
...Rich
LaRue Medlin
Well-Known Member
I don't care what they do, it/they won't help ME! I've been trying for 2 years just to re-fi and get away from my ARM loan coming due in Oct. I don't want any money, nothing but a fixed rate! Hell, I'd give the person who got me approved a bonus! NOPE.......................................... no takers........................ Anyone want to float me a loan?????????:toilet::cry::cry::cry::cry:
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
I think the government has run out of money to build new housing projects, so now they want the banks to buy housing for poor people.
LaRue,
Do you know why they will not refinance your house? Are you upside-down on your loan (Owe more than the house is worth now)? You should be eligible for a VA loan at low, fixed interest rate? If you current loan is a VA loan, they are supposed to guarantee a refinance, but I'm sure there are some restrictions?
Have you tried other mortgage companies? With an ARM mortgage and the increasing interest rate, there is not much incentive for your current mortgage company to refinance since they stand to lose money because they loaned the money at a lower interest rate for the first 5-7 years.
I applied for a VA loan on my new house in Jan 24, 2010 and all the paperwork was approved within a month. I closed on the house Feb 19, 2010, with a fixed interest rate of 4.75%. No ARM's for me, thanks.
Since then I get at least 2 offers a week to refinance, or that I am eligible for a VA refinance. What's odd is that they are not offering any lower interest rate, which makes no sense to refinance for the same or higher interest rate. So of them have offered interest rates down into the 3% range, but they are BS just to entice people to call.
If you remember Jim Thompson (Real Estate broker and big NASCAR fan with a white ST) from some of the earlier Sport Trac meets. He was at the Memphis meet. Anyway, years ago I was looking to refinance my old house and I only had about 7-8 years left on my mortgage. He suggested I get a 15 year ARM mortgage, and pay it off in 7 years before the interest rate went up. I never could find any mortgage company willing to go for that deal.. and I would not go for any of the offers they tried to get me into :grin:
I hope everything works out for you and that you are not in any danger of losing your home?
...Rich
Do you know why they will not refinance your house? Are you upside-down on your loan (Owe more than the house is worth now)? You should be eligible for a VA loan at low, fixed interest rate? If you current loan is a VA loan, they are supposed to guarantee a refinance, but I'm sure there are some restrictions?
Have you tried other mortgage companies? With an ARM mortgage and the increasing interest rate, there is not much incentive for your current mortgage company to refinance since they stand to lose money because they loaned the money at a lower interest rate for the first 5-7 years.
I applied for a VA loan on my new house in Jan 24, 2010 and all the paperwork was approved within a month. I closed on the house Feb 19, 2010, with a fixed interest rate of 4.75%. No ARM's for me, thanks.
Since then I get at least 2 offers a week to refinance, or that I am eligible for a VA refinance. What's odd is that they are not offering any lower interest rate, which makes no sense to refinance for the same or higher interest rate. So of them have offered interest rates down into the 3% range, but they are BS just to entice people to call.
If you remember Jim Thompson (Real Estate broker and big NASCAR fan with a white ST) from some of the earlier Sport Trac meets. He was at the Memphis meet. Anyway, years ago I was looking to refinance my old house and I only had about 7-8 years left on my mortgage. He suggested I get a 15 year ARM mortgage, and pay it off in 7 years before the interest rate went up. I never could find any mortgage company willing to go for that deal.. and I would not go for any of the offers they tried to get me into :grin:
I hope everything works out for you and that you are not in any danger of losing your home?
...Rich
Steve McKellop
Well-Known Member
....everybody deserves a big house, expensive cars, fine threads, big TV's, trips/vacations, etc. so they "feel" good.
Work ............nah, who needs it!
:banghead::angry::angry::banghead::cheeky::cheeky:
Work ............nah, who needs it!
:banghead::angry::angry::banghead::cheeky::cheeky:
Steve M.
I certainly cannot disagree with your last statement...since that is the primary cause of many of the forclosures and bankrupcies over the past 3-4 years. I do not have any sympathy for those who lied about their income on their loan applications, and I have no sympathy for the mortgage companies that failed to do incomve verifications and credit checks.
I also think that some of the real estate and mortgage brokers can share in the blame in inticing people to buy bigger, more expensive homes that at that time, they could afford, but it cut into their financial safety net. Nobody with any brains would buy a house or new car if they even suspected that they may lose their job or that the company was about to downsize.
I know my daughter and her husband bought a new house a few years ago and were constantly told by the real state salesman that they could afford a larger (more expensive) home and that they would easliy be approved for a loan that was nearly double what they asked for.
Luckily my daughter (an Accountant) had the smarts to purchase the smaller home. About a year after they purchasd the home, they got divorced and her ex-husband walked away from the house. That pretty much cut her family income in half. Keeping the house put a strain on my daughter's finances, my daughter has managed to keep the house for well over a year now and appears to have survived the worst of the crisis and things are now stabilizing for her.
If you consider that many of the people who were forclosed on were put into financial difficulty by loosing their jobs due to the poor economy and business downsizing, I would venture to say that most people could not keep their homes for very long if they lost their jobs or even had to take a significant pay cut or loss of income.
I agree that a lot of people fall into the group you described, but there are many others who had the rug pulled out from under them through no fault of their own.
...Rich
I certainly cannot disagree with your last statement...since that is the primary cause of many of the forclosures and bankrupcies over the past 3-4 years. I do not have any sympathy for those who lied about their income on their loan applications, and I have no sympathy for the mortgage companies that failed to do incomve verifications and credit checks.
I also think that some of the real estate and mortgage brokers can share in the blame in inticing people to buy bigger, more expensive homes that at that time, they could afford, but it cut into their financial safety net. Nobody with any brains would buy a house or new car if they even suspected that they may lose their job or that the company was about to downsize.
I know my daughter and her husband bought a new house a few years ago and were constantly told by the real state salesman that they could afford a larger (more expensive) home and that they would easliy be approved for a loan that was nearly double what they asked for.
Luckily my daughter (an Accountant) had the smarts to purchase the smaller home. About a year after they purchasd the home, they got divorced and her ex-husband walked away from the house. That pretty much cut her family income in half. Keeping the house put a strain on my daughter's finances, my daughter has managed to keep the house for well over a year now and appears to have survived the worst of the crisis and things are now stabilizing for her.
If you consider that many of the people who were forclosed on were put into financial difficulty by loosing their jobs due to the poor economy and business downsizing, I would venture to say that most people could not keep their homes for very long if they lost their jobs or even had to take a significant pay cut or loss of income.
I agree that a lot of people fall into the group you described, but there are many others who had the rug pulled out from under them through no fault of their own.
...Rich
Bill V
Well-Known Member
OK, I'm a bit mystified here...
Why is no one calling Hugh out for posting a thread with a headline which is completely unsubstantiated by the post's content???
NO WHERE in the article does it say that Obama (or anyone else) is pushing anyone to offer sub-prime mortgages again!
It does say that they are investigating some of the practices used for determining credit-worthiness. And anyone wanting to criticize them for such investigations, go ahead. I, too, think that some of these practices not only aren't discriminatory, but are just plain, simple, sound business sense.
But no where in this piece does anyone say that we should bring back sub-prime mortgages again. If that's happening, and is mentioned in some other article, please provide the link. But otherwise, all indications cited here indicate that this allegation is completely false.
Why is no one calling Hugh out for posting a thread with a headline which is completely unsubstantiated by the post's content???
NO WHERE in the article does it say that Obama (or anyone else) is pushing anyone to offer sub-prime mortgages again!
It does say that they are investigating some of the practices used for determining credit-worthiness. And anyone wanting to criticize them for such investigations, go ahead. I, too, think that some of these practices not only aren't discriminatory, but are just plain, simple, sound business sense.
But no where in this piece does anyone say that we should bring back sub-prime mortgages again. If that's happening, and is mentioned in some other article, please provide the link. But otherwise, all indications cited here indicate that this allegation is completely false.
Bill V,
Very good eye...I think you caught everyone napping. I honestly did not read the article and assumed that Hugh had posted an article that matched the message title he posted.
It does appear that Hugh misinterpereted the article and posted it to make Obama look like he was pushing to resurrect the old sub prime mortgages that nearly crippled this country's economy.
I guess we are all a little guilty of wanting to criticize Obama for the economy, and spending and jumped to conclusions.
I certainly hope Hugh will weigh in and explain what he saw in the article that prompted his misleading post.
Just like the raid on bin Laden's compound, too many are quick to criticize Obama without looking at the real facts. And I am just as guilty as the others.
...Richard
Very good eye...I think you caught everyone napping. I honestly did not read the article and assumed that Hugh had posted an article that matched the message title he posted.
It does appear that Hugh misinterpereted the article and posted it to make Obama look like he was pushing to resurrect the old sub prime mortgages that nearly crippled this country's economy.
I guess we are all a little guilty of wanting to criticize Obama for the economy, and spending and jumped to conclusions.
I certainly hope Hugh will weigh in and explain what he saw in the article that prompted his misleading post.
Just like the raid on bin Laden's compound, too many are quick to criticize Obama without looking at the real facts. And I am just as guilty as the others.
...Richard
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
It's not as though the "real facts" are readily available for anyone to look at.
A speech, some articles, a couple of pictures from Pakistan, and testimony from several congressmen (one, sadly, from my state) on an intelligence committee claiming that they have seen the Bin Laden photos.
True. It's sensationalism to make this title, but it is understandable to call "fire" when one sees a billowing cloud of smoke. Especially when the same smoke has been seen before, and the conflagration causing it burned many.
"Better safe than sorry"--if our government can use this to justify its actions on the populace, it's only fair that the populace be afforded the same privilege.
I admit I just used the tag from the source as the title, but I still think it is legitimate. KL's description is adequate.
I certainly did not misrepresent anything, deceive, or jump to any conclusions. I just use simple deductive reasoning. But for further proof, since it has been asked for:
Agencies are telling banks where they must make credit available, namely low-income areas where mortgages are inherently "sub-prime." These agencies are operated by the executive branch of the government. The executive branch of the government can also be referred to as President Obama's "administration." Therefore, "Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again."
I know this wasn't directly spelled out in the article, but that's what I read. You don't really have to go between the lines or make any loose connections. The executive branch is acting again in its power that previously forced the housing market to crash.
I'd be interested to read different interpretations because that honestly is the only one I'm seeing.
I certainly did not misrepresent anything, deceive, or jump to any conclusions. I just use simple deductive reasoning. But for further proof, since it has been asked for:
Agencies are telling banks where they must make credit available, namely low-income areas where mortgages are inherently "sub-prime." These agencies are operated by the executive branch of the government. The executive branch of the government can also be referred to as President Obama's "administration." Therefore, "Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again."
I know this wasn't directly spelled out in the article, but that's what I read. You don't really have to go between the lines or make any loose connections. The executive branch is acting again in its power that previously forced the housing market to crash.
I'd be interested to read different interpretations because that honestly is the only one I'm seeing.
Last edited by a moderator:
KL,
The absence of facts does not mean someone should make up their own scenario, and publish them as facts just to fill the vacuum.
KL and Hugh,
I don't see where the article even suggest that Obama want's to jump start the sub-prime mortgage market again. It only appears that he is concerned that credit is no longer available to certain areas populated by blacks.
The mention of the word "Redline" as being areas where the lenders will not even consider anyone living in those areas, makes the practice questionable? I think if you draw a circle around all the poor black areas in town and say you are not going to give credit to anyone who lives in that area is wrong if you do not even evaluate their credit worthiness.
Sub-Prime means loaning mortgage money to someone who normally would not qualify for a loan at that low of an interest rate.
I don't think the article means that Obama wants or is pushing for continuing the Sub-Prime mortgages, he is questioning the banking practices of Redlining predominately poor black neighborhoods and denying everyone access to credit assuming that nobody on the other side of that line is credit worthy.
...Rich
The absence of facts does not mean someone should make up their own scenario, and publish them as facts just to fill the vacuum.
KL and Hugh,
I don't see where the article even suggest that Obama want's to jump start the sub-prime mortgage market again. It only appears that he is concerned that credit is no longer available to certain areas populated by blacks.
The mention of the word "Redline" as being areas where the lenders will not even consider anyone living in those areas, makes the practice questionable? I think if you draw a circle around all the poor black areas in town and say you are not going to give credit to anyone who lives in that area is wrong if you do not even evaluate their credit worthiness.
Sub-Prime means loaning mortgage money to someone who normally would not qualify for a loan at that low of an interest rate.
I don't think the article means that Obama wants or is pushing for continuing the Sub-Prime mortgages, he is questioning the banking practices of Redlining predominately poor black neighborhoods and denying everyone access to credit assuming that nobody on the other side of that line is credit worthy.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
