Yea I wish.......my wife's got all the brains in this operation...Her one brother works at Garmin in KC (St.Louis University majored in computer science minored in physics) another brother works at Kennedy Space Center for NASA (St Louis University majored in Aeronautical Engineering) both graduated cum laud (it just sounds dirty) Her other brother graduated from Lindenwood with a mass-com degree (he is a police dispatcher for the county) and she has two sisters still in college. I have no problem being the family example of why you should graduate from college.... -T
edit to say I own page 2!
[This message has been edited by Puckhead (edited 03-07-2008).]
...so our house that appraised for 110k in '05 won't appraise for 80k now
Those kind of prices sound unbelievable to me living here in Vancouver. I live in a residential area on the east side of town, the “wrong side of the tracks” so to speak, and a regular 33x120 ft lot goes for about half a million dollars here. On the west side it’s probably double that. And I’m just talking about a bare lot (or more likely a lot with a "knock down" on it). Building costs are on top of that!
You guys on the coasts should expect that. there is only so much room to build before you go inland. here in the midwest there are no physical boundries but your commute to work may take hours. a lot of it has to do with the right burb, schools, access to hwys, etc. the only houses that bring that kinda money around here are little mansions. there's a row (well a couple miles) of houses in lee's summit that are just crazy. eight bebrooms, iron fences, seperate 4 car garages, etc. I think a lot of the royals and chiefs players live out there. when i drive by i throw my trash onto their yards.
------------------ “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” -Henry Ford
You guys on the coasts should expect that. there is only so much room to build before you go inland.
That's part of the problem. However, the biggest problem by far is all the immigration to the area, from both Asia and from within Canada. There's too many freaking people here now.
I love the west coast (born and bred in Vancouver), but I'm thinking I'm going to have to at least get out of Vancouver city itself in the next few years to retain my sanity. Fortunately it's a big province, so there's plenty of towns along our beautiful coastline to investigate for possible relocation. Property prices will be lower elsewhere, so I should come out ahead financially if I can actually be sufficiently motivated to up and move away from here.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 03-07-2008).]
I bought my house at a time when I was ready, and found the place that suited me. My credit score was at the time in the 790's. I put down 40K from my own pocket. I didn't buy the house to flip it, I bought it to live in. Paid 310K for it. 30 year fixed, 6.25% I can afford the payments without crying. I signed a contract that I knew I would be able to fulfill.
I knew that the influx of Californians into the Vegas valley (and well, from everywhere else too) had pumped the prices up nearly double in just 5-6 years. But what I didn't know, was what they were just buying loads of investment homes with there subprime rates and interest onlys, just so that they could get there greedy hands into the hottest market in the US. Then the timeline on those loans expired with the interest rate hikes, then the market took a little tumble and threw a stupid number of houses into forclosure, effectivly deflating the market here in a hurry. Now my home is barely worth what I owe on it. I have no sympathy for those people that flooded this market with the smell of BS. I hope they lose there shirts, because its people like me that suffer from their greed.
Im not bitter, nor do I care what the market does in the short term. I'm not flipping this house. I agreed with the terms of my mortgage. I just can't wait to pay it off now. 28 years to go.
I used to work for one of the national mortgage lending companies branched from a bank until two years ago. It was amazing how many stupid products they were flooding the market with and now that company is losing more than its shirt. They've even closed several of their brands, etc.
I work for a large bank now and they are hurting too, although nothing like the shop mentioned above. This bank never touched subprime loans, but the slowdown is causing a drop in profits across the bank. I fully expect layoffs to begin in the next month or two.
Originally posted by aceman: How was it your only option? You couldn't find a 3 bedroom house to rent?
Have you even looked at what the recent rents are for a 3 bedroom house lately?
My oldest daughter called last year saying they were behind on their rent, RENT on an apartment in arm pit Worcester, MA. Start, ya that’s right start at $750 a month, average is $1,000 a month for an apartment.
So buying is cheaper, if you can get in.
quote
Originally posted by aceman: Why would you have 4 and then 5 kids if you really couldn't afford them in the first place? Hey I can see one and then an Oops! But 5 kids????
What business is it of yours if he has 2, 5 or a dozen kids. Who made you the newest official of the population growth police?
quote
Originally posted by aceman: You knew you probably couldn't afford it in a couple years and you still took out the loan? (Hello!!!!! Like telling a kid the stove is hot and they still have to put their finger on it and get burned.)
Because all those people who have the education, like Toddster tell people that they can afford it, then after a year or two can turn it over for more than they paid for it. Just look at his own threads on buying a home. That is what he has said. Housing prices can only increase, they will never go down, at least that is what Toddster said.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: The boom in Real Estate investment was almost unheard of! In parts of the country equity gains (which averaged 3% nationally) were leaping to 20% or more per year! Home literally doubled in value in 4-5 years or less in some areas.
Anyway, I digress. The housing market is primed to maintain a healthy if more moderate growth. Beleive it or not, the median price of homes in the Bay Area rose 6.1% last year. Everybody I talk to tells me they are waiting to see how much lower prices will go. I look at them in disbelief because they believe what they read in the Newspapers. Yes, it is true that a handful of people fire sold their houses. this is normal in ANY market. It just goes unnoticed for the most part during boom times. During uncertain times people focus more and more on the doom and gloom stories and before you know it, your self fulfilling prophecy is revealed. I could mention a little skirmish in the Middle East as a perfect example of bad press creating a bad situation but ...
The fact is that interest rates are low, housing starts are down, immigration is at record levels, jobs are up with a record low unemployment rate, Corporate investment is at staggering levels, and the market for American goods is growing Internationally. We are seeing more foreclosures on homes that were 100% financed but other than that, equity gains are still better than average and as soon as people stop beleiving the press and take a look at the fact that houses are NOT getting cheaper, loan rates are NOT going lower, their job security has NEVER been better, and housing as an investment is STILL the best deal around, they will start buying again. I am seeing it already. People that had shunned the housing market in droves for the past 4 months are now ringing the phone off the hook.
Are we going to return to the glory years of 2000-2005? Not likely..I wouldn't want it for the sake of our country. But healthy gains are inevitable and those with the patience to sit back and let the panic sticken masses crash and burn will do quite well for themselves.
Now that is all on a national level, while some areas are growing, others are falling back. New England is a little worse for wear when it comes to the middle class. With all due respect, the political environment is not freindly to business and if business does not move to New England, jobs will dry up. When that happens you will have a true class war on your hands with only the Uber rich and the huddled masses to point to. A healthy thrifty working class is the product of good harmony with business. And a healthy housing market is dependent on both. I haven't looked at the NAR economic numbers for New England and don't want to pay to see them so all I can say is find a good Realtor in your area who has a clue and ask what they can gleen from the data. But as a grand overview of the national data, I'm not worried for America.
He has an education, right?
He knows more than everyone else, right?
Lets just buy that home we can’t afford and sell it in 2 years for more than what we owe because that is what the educated men told us we could do.
The banks wrote the loans, right? So who is more at fault? The people with all the education in the places of authority?
Or the people who listened to all those people with all that education who told them to buy?
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Mr Bitter, He obviously thought and still thinks that the 5 kids isn't the reason why his finances suck. He can have 10 kids for all I care. Just don't wonder why you can't pay your house payment. Gee, maybe if he didn't have all those kids, he could have saved money for a down payment. Maybe with only 1-2 kids, wifey could work. Have as many kids as one wants. Just realize that the kids are where your expenses are. Realize if you can afford 1,2,3 or more. DON'T tell me they aren't the reason he needed larger/more expensive living accommodation.
He bought 2 years ago, right? About 3 years ago now, renting became cheaper than buying an overinflated house. It was on the 10 O'clock news in my area. You probably saw something like that, since your education seems to solely come from whatever a news agency's agenda is.
Mr Bitter, you don't listen/believe any other college educated person. Why should you believe a real estate agent?
Maybe a real house wasn't the only option. Maybe he could have bought a mobile home. You don't need to get a mortgage for a "wannabe house" and they're cheap because you dispose of them after 10 years or so.....Right, Mr Bitter?
BTW, Mr Bitter, you're throwing up your bitter, drunken bum in a crappy bar argument again. I don't have anymore time to waste on you. Come back with a better argument and maybe I'll talk to you again after work.
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 03-07-2008).]
Mr Bitter, He obviously thought and still thinks that the 5 kids isn't the reason why his finances suck. He can have 10 kids for all I care. Just don't wonder why you can't pay your house payment. Gee, maybe if he didn't have all those kids, he could have saved money for a down payment. Maybe with only 1-2 kids, wifey could work. Have as many kids as one wants. Just realize that the kids are where your expenses are. Realize if you can afford 1,2,3 or more. DON'T tell me they aren't the reason he needed larger/more expensive living accommodation.
He bought 2 years ago, right? About 3 years ago now, renting became cheaper than buying an overinflated house. It was on the 10 O'clock news in my area. You probably saw something like that, since your education seems to solely come from whatever a news agency's agenda is.
Mr Bitter, you don't listen/believe any other college educated person. Why should you believe a real estate agent?
Maybe a real house wasn't the only option. Maybe he could have bought a mobile home. You don't need to get a mortgage for a "wannabe house" and they're cheap because you dispose of them after 10 years or so.....Right, Mr Bitter?
BTW, Mr Bitter, you're throwing up your bitter, drunken bum in a crappy bar argument again. I don't have anymore time to waste on you. Come back with a better argument and maybe I'll talk to you again after work.
Do you find some weird satisfaction in degrading everyone who disagrees with you?
Hey the people with the education in charge were still saying buying a home was a good idea even last year. Toddster even said it was still a good idea as late as January last year.
For some reason you can’t have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with you without trying to degrade them.
That in itself makes you the bitter one.
God forbid anyone even make a correct statement, then you really go off the subject. So you don’t have to answer their questions or stay on the subject.
Hey, buy that house, you can sell it for more than you owe in a year or 2 and make money and buy an even bigger and better house.
Isn’t that what Toddster has said?
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Not all bad has come from this housing disaster... a lot of people, like myself, were forced to find better paying jobs or return to school.
When I found out I couldn't afford to buy a home in a decent area(even with a higher than national average salary, good credit, and a large down payment), I returned to school full time in order to get a better job in the future.
I really hope lenders burn over this one. I remember them turning me down for fixed mortgages and countering with multiple ARM offers.
Not all bad has come from this housing disaster... a lot of people, like myself, were forced to find better paying jobs or return to school.
Thats all well and good but with the market being depressed many employers are cutting back to keep their profit margins intact and stock holders happy.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers made their deepest cut in staffing in almost five years in February, according to a closely watched government report that showed the labor market to be far weaker than expected.
Listening to talk radio today, I heard of a plan that is being circulated around the Senate. It won't help everyone but, it might help some. The crutch of the plan is tax credits being made available to anyone that buys a home in foreclosure. I believe they said that the buyer had to stay or keep the home a minimum of three years to get the whole tax credit. Though it doesn't really save anyone that used ARM's and now can't make the payments, it does keep the market moving and keeps homes occupied. I don't think there is a good answer to this. I'm definately not in favor of another Savings and Loan Bail Out. We're still paying for that mess. Some banks are going to fail, that's part of doing business. Hopefully, folks will learn from this and not bite off more than they can chew. Even if the full meal doesn't come along for three to five years. If you can't afford it now, what's makes folks think they will in a few years.
Ron
damn fine idea. always impressed when they try to solve a problem in a real manner. because the real problem with the forclosures is vacant houses. the people who were evicted should not have been there in the first place - so, they are not actually the problem. and, another problem with foreclosed houses is the fact that since they couldnt afford the payments - they certianly could not afford the upkeep.
nothing wrecks a nieghborhood like a vacant sitting house. becuase it spreads. quickly.
I'm feeling left out. Since I pay my mortgage on time, I won't see any reduction in my balance owed or break with the interest on my mortgage. Since I live within my means, I won't see any benefit from a welfare payment. Since I pay for my health care insurance, I won't get any benefit from free health care or free prescriptions. I get to foot the bills for myself, then see my tax dollars subsidizing those who are unable or unwilling to take the responsibility for their actions. Something is wrong with the system.
I'm feeling left out. Since I pay my mortgage on time, I won't see any reduction in my balance owed or break with the interest on my mortgage. Since I live within my means, I won't see any benefit from a welfare payment. Since I pay for my health care insurance, I won't get any benefit from free health care or free prescriptions. I get to foot the bills for myself, then see my tax dollars subsidizing those who are unable or unwilling to take the responsibility for their actions. Something is wrong with the system.
then quit. what the french, toast?
it's so easy to not work, you get to drive mercedes & wear furs coats. or, like the mexicans - you get a new truck.
betcha you dont. betcha you like what ya got. yes, I understand the frustration.
damn fine idea. always impressed when they try to solve a problem in a real manner. because the real problem with the forclosures is vacant houses. the people who were evicted should not have been there in the first place - so, they are not actually the problem. and, another problem with foreclosed houses is the fact that since they couldnt afford the payments - they certianly could not afford the upkeep.
nothing wrecks a nieghborhood like a vacant sitting house. becuase it spreads. quickly.
Pyrithian....not attacking here, just trying to understand......To use public money to help people profit from this (ie: buying a vacant,using govt. money to fix it, stay there for three years turn around and sell to buy a bigger house) is better than using govt. money to keep families in the houses to start with?? I would probably be in favor of this more, if it were a loan. sell in under 10 yrs and you have to pay a portion back.
It would definitely help those communities who has seen their values drop because of vacants (Detroit, Cleveland) but, even Ben Bernanke is starting to say the banks may have to eat portions of these loans. It may be necessary to stave off total collapse.
The thing I would like to see is someone start suing the appraisers. I've seen appraisals in my neighborhood at 150% higher than what they should be. I have a friend whose house was appraised at $175k last year. They have been on the market for a year (her company merged and sent their office to Houston) they cant get offers at $105k..........sad really
Originally posted by Puckhead: Pyrthian....not attacking here, just trying to understand......To use public money to help people profit from this (ie: buying a vacant,using govt. money to fix it, stay there for three years turn around and sell to buy a bigger house) is better than using govt. money to keep families in the houses to start with?? I would probably be in favor of this more, if it were a loan. sell in under 10 yrs and you have to pay a portion back.
It would definitely help those communities who has seen their values drop because of vacants (Detroit, Cleveland) but, even Ben Bernanke is starting to say the banks may have to eat portions of these loans. It may be necessary to stave off total collapse.
The thing I would like to see is someone start suing the appraisers. I've seen appraisals in my neighborhood at 150% higher than what they should be. I have a friend whose house was appraised at $175k last year. They have been on the market for a year (her company merged and sent their office to Houston) they cant get offers at $105k..........sad really
peace be to y'alls
-T
nope. these people could not afford to be there in the first place. and, if they cant afford to be there, they certainly cant afford the upkeep - which affects the value of the whole neighborhood. dont drag out the inevitable.
there are plenty of positive things the g'ment could spend money on to help people. public transportation. solar power. border security. aids quarantine.
I'm feeling left out. Since I pay my mortgage on time, I won't see any reduction in my balance owed or break with the interest on my mortgage. Since I live within my means, I won't see any benefit from a welfare payment. Since I pay for my health care insurance, I won't get any benefit from free health care or free prescriptions. I get to foot the bills for myself, then see my tax dollars subsidizing those who are unable or unwilling to take the responsibility for their actions. Something is wrong with the system.
Well sir you are a better man then then the rest if thats any consolation.
Originally posted by JazzMan: I wonder who defines "...can't afford to be there..."?
Realtors try to convince people to buy as much house as they can because that's their job and their only way to earn their commission.
Banks want to make loans because if they're not loaning money they're not making a profit.
People for the most part just want to own a home for themselves and their kids, and would like to live in as nice a neighborhood as the realtors and bankers will let them.
So, who's job is it to tell homebuyers to not listen to their realtors, not to get a mortgage from their banker?
Who's job is it to define who is and who is not allowed to live in a given neighborhood?
JazzMan
who defines "cant afford to be there"? easy: the home owner. if he can afford it - he will. if he cant - he wont. banks only make money on loans when the interest is higher than inflation. of course. thats the basic use of a home - a stable environment to raise the kids. who's job is it? who does NOT know that buying a home (especially the 1st home) is the single largest decision a person will make? the paymenst are laid out right in front of the buyer. the payments are not held secret until the deal is closed. I dont think it is up to the banker or realtor to explain to the buyer that homes come with other expenses, besides the mortgage payment - like appliances, lawnmowers, heaters, A/C units, curtains, furniture, driveways, porches, windows, and so on.
I like the idea of opening the market through incentives for the investors with "money" who will hold and maintain the houses till things turn around. This will solve all kinds of problems. It could not be more obvious that the people foreclosed on could not afford to live their.
It is always the buyers responsibility to decide what they can afford. It is idiotic to blame the salesman for selling YOU a house or too much TV or car than you need or can afford. Next we can blame the stock broker because your investment tanked! OH Mr. bitter already tried to do that. Last time I looked into housing loan requirements they made a big deal over how much debt you were carrying, such as car loans, store and other credit cards, too much? no loan. Problem is the idiots get the house and then spend spend spend on other things using credit.
Home equity is only on paper till you SPEND it, or sell. You have to live someplace so as long as the housing is fitting your needs and you could REALLY afford to live there in the first place it is a non issue.
I heard on the news yesterday that the home market unexpectedly flattened last month. I have not been able to find it online though, no big surprise here. Too many people nned the crash for personal gain, beit political power or financial,,,,, or both.
Originally posted by 84fiero123: He has an education, right?
How many kinds of ******* are you?
I JUST got through saying exactly the opposite. I don't tell people what they can afford and neither do any other Realtors. that is not our job.
Hell I had a couple ready to write an offer on a $638K house the other day when they shocked me by saying that they wanted to keep the mortgage under $2400/month. I said, "you can't afford this house". $2400 puts you in the $450K to $500K range TOPS! You need to go back and talk to your mortgage broker again before we make an offer.
The problem, you pinhead, are the LENDERS, not real estate agents.
Put your personal envy of me on hold long enough form a rational though from now on.
I wonder who defines "...can't afford to be there..."?
Realtors try to convince people to buy as much house as they can because that's their job and their only way to earn their commission.
Banks want to make loans because if they're not loaning money they're not making a profit.
People for the most part just want to own a home for themselves and their kids, and would like to live in as nice a neighborhood as the realtors and bankers will let them.
So, who's job is it to tell homebuyers to not listen to their realtors, not to get a mortgage from their banker?
Who's job is it to define who is and who is not allowed to live in a given neighborhood?
JazzMan
quote
"People for the most part just want to own a home for themselves and their kids, and would like to live in as nice a neighborhood as the realtors and bankers will let them.
So, who's job is it to tell homebuyers to not listen to their realtors, not to get a mortgage from their banker?"
If you ever wondered what the differences were between the two great opposing gladiators of the universe as far as intelligent life goes this statement summed up one sides ideals to a tee.
The social agenda is so vile even when they are dying they will blame everyone but themselves. " It isn't my fault it isn't my fault" Is the last thing I heard as I shoveled enough dirt into the grave to fill in their mouth muffling the disgusting sounds of self delusion.
Kind of off topic-but... Heard today of a new "mini-industry" that is getting legs around here. Evidntly, it is next to impossible to get insurance on an empty building-uninhabited. Banks are "leasing" their foreclosures to people to live in them--6 months at a time-then they have to move to another property. Zero cost to the person living in the foreclosure-no rent-no utility bill-no insurance-no maintenance. In fact-a $200/mo fee was quoted to me--the bank pays that person to occupy the house. The person I know that is doing this did the following: 1. Put most of her possessions into storage, incl most of her furniture. 2. Kept her job, but is now able to bank most of her paycheck. 3. Has 3 yr contract with the bank she is dealing with to occupy their vacant forclosures. 4. Bank pays for the moves. She will move 6 times in that 3yr period and expects to save $120K in that period.
Originally posted by Toddster: In addition, the housing market is getting stronger. It's pure bullshit but that's the Japanese take on things not mine.
Did you or did you not post that 07-27-2007 04:51 PM In the thread I started about the economy.
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Originally posted by Toddster: Now to answer your question about why. Our economy is designed to give every sucker in this country ONE, and only one, break...Real Estate. Investing in a home is the best way to plan for your future and unless you have a couple hundred grand burning a hole in your pocket you need to borrow. And you can't do it without credit.
You said that 08-02-2006 11:32 PM Didn’t you?
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
subprime loans..............? ? ? ? Explain that term please-in layman's terms--and why anyone would elect to go that route.
Exactly... It burns my A$$ that people that were willing to bite on these crappy rates are now singing the blues.I got in at under 5%,and have never ever missed or been late on any mortgage payments(10 years now) I'd like a shave off of my %,but I won't get it,because I am responsible... Don't get me wrong.Folks that have fallen into financial despair and divorce and all that stuff,they are hurting.
But between the greedy lenders,and people blind enough to take on a loan,that really was in black and white.Who's to blame....The buyer. Simple. Now they are getting a bail out? (in so many words)
I'll pass on my next 10 payments and see the help I get....
Just trying to show that Todd has said in the past that real-estate would always increase in value, I found these when looking for that statement .
Now just how good is that deal now with the price of real-estate values going down instead of up?
Indyyellowgt hey I got one of those regular loans 12 years ago, I was almost paid off had just a few grand left on the place and had my stroke. I almost lost my home because of other reasons than those who have gotten those ARM’s. No one helped me ether. But I now own it outright, owe nothing but the taxes every year and the insurance ever year now.
I don’t think it is fair that the government is talking about bailing out the banks because they were greedy and are getting what they did to all those people who took on those ARM’s.
I also don’t think it’s fair that they are trying to bail out those people who took out those ARM’s.
But I also don’t think it is just their own stupidity. They listened to those who are educated in the housing market that said “It’s a win, win situation. Hey the places are only going to increase in value. You can sell it for more than you paid for it in a couple of years.”
People like Todd and the banks told them that and they took their word for it, hey they have the education, they studied economics.
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
There's some truth to just about everything ever said.
In every investment--and a home and homesite is a very big investment--there is both risk and cyclic highs and lows. There is also a good chance of good returns. Depends how long a person holds and when they sell. The difference regarding homes, is that they can be foreclosed on, before they become a financial asset to the buyer. I emphasize financial asset, because unlike other investments, a home becomes a personal and emotional asset almost as soon as the buyer signs the papers. Peace of mind, stability, a sense of belonging, permanence, and safety that do not come with renting. I too have always thought that a person can't go wrong with buying property, and still believe so, as long as a person has the will and the resources to weather the storms. Right now, my family owns a piece of property that will likely never be in my lifetime-worth what was paid for it. Not a big investment, but worrisome, because taxes and maintenance costs are increasing, and we are ready to sell it for 1/2 what was paid for it. So, no one is immune--I know that. I think I'm fairly well informed-tho my ignorance is evident in the subprime questions, but still, I would be very hesitant to buy a home based mostly on what a banker, real estate agent, or seller told me. People have to educate themselves before commitment. but, in these current times, there is PLENTY of blame to go around.
1st on my list, in order of culpability--would be the mortgage companys. They, more than anyone else, knew the high risk factors with these loans and the higher than normal risk of lending to folks on borderline ability to meet their obligations.
2nd on my list of culpability is banks. They are on the lower end of the lending spectrum when it comes to $100K+ loans. Most local banks don't have the resources and are more likely to investigate a borrower more extensively.
3rd would be realators. Tho the financial part of it isn't really supposed to be part of a realator's job, most realators do in fact help a prospective buyer to find financing. I know this from personal experience. It's to their advantage to find the buyer a mortgage house or bank that will lend the cash. Most realators, have developed relationships with lenders in their areas, and most expereinced realtors have adeveloped a "feel" for the prospective buyer. Tho not nearly 100% effective, most realtors know pretty quickly into the scheme whether a buyer can really afford the house.A good reputable realtor will tactfully tell a buyer he/she perhaps should look for a less expensive home--or wait .
4th would be the culpability of the buyer. I truly do understand it is really really hard for a guy to look at his young family and NOT take advantage of a APR. He just wants a home for his wife and kids--he's the only part of this not driven by financial gain. Just wants some stability, safety, and a sense he provided for his family. Yes, the buyer chould have done things differently, but that's water under the bridge.
You guys who want to beat Puckhead while he's down-have at it. IMO, it Says way more about you than it does him.
I don't know what the answer is, but I am dead set against a bailout for the lenders, and I stand to lose a good chunk of change if local banks start failing. I am in favor of some sort of relief-bailout-support etc for the homebuyers. Just haven't made up my mind how it should work-or how far it should go.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-07-2008).]
Originally posted by 84fiero123: Just trying to show that Todd has said in the past that real-estate would always increase in value, I found these when looking for that statement .
Now just how good is that deal now with the price of real-estate values going down instead of up?
Indyyellowgt hey I got one of those regular loans 12 years ago, I was almost paid off had just a few grand left on the place and had my stroke. I almost lost my home because of other reasons than those who have gotten those ARM’s. No one helped me ether. But I now own it outright, owe nothing but the taxes every year and the insurance ever year now.
I don’t think it is fair that the government is talking about bailing out the banks because they were greedy and are getting what they did to all those people who took on those ARM’s.
I also don’t think it’s fair that they are trying to bail out those people who took out those ARM’s.
But I also don’t think it is just their own stupidity. They listened to those who are educated in the housing market that said “It’s a win, win situation. Hey the places are only going to increase in value. You can sell it for more than you paid for it in a couple of years.”
People like Todd and the banks told them that and they took their word for it, hey they have the education, they studied economics.
Real estate will always increase in value.
You nit pik at a timeline and blame brokers and lenders for people's decisions to pay more than they earn.
I have money to loan and do. If you have the equity and are willing to sign then for 14 percent you get my money. Interested? I'm gonna take your house if you don't pay. Am I a bad evil doer? If I took your house was it my fault you lost everything?
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Real estate will always increase in value.
You nit pik at a timeline and blame brokers and lenders for people's decisions to pay more than they earn.
I have money to loan and do. If you have the equity and are willing to sign then for 14 percent you get my money. Interested? I'm gonna take your house if you don't pay. Am I a bad evil doer? If I took your house was it my fault you lost everything?
Time line my ass, this has been going on since I started my thread a year ago.
The ones in charge say it may go on for another 2 or 3 years before prices stabilize. If that’s true a lot more people are going to be without homes and a lot more banks are going to go under.
I don't want your money, I don't need your money, and I wouldn't take YOUR MONEY anyway.
What gets me is people here are blaming just those who took the loans out, not the banks, or brokers, or agents, just those who took the loans. Hey they all had a hand in it. I’m not saying just those in the banks are at fault or just the realtors, everyone here is to blame.
But mostly the bankers, they got to greedy and it is biting them in the ass, and in turn will bite the rest of us.
We are all gona loose, well except the bankers, they already made their money and tucked it away in some Caiman (SP), or Swiss bank.
They new this would happen and they just lead everyone else on into the trap and collected until it was to late.
Now everyone but them will pay.
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Mr Bitter, Do you complain about a car dealership? They do the same damn things. People go out and get cars they really can't afford. Repos happen every day. We all look at the people that get their car repo-ed as idiots. Same thing with a house. Nothing is hidden in these mortgage contracts!
28 years to go.
