...and at the time, that was correct. In fact, the banks were counting on
people refinancing every few years. Every refinancing cycle generates
numbers/income for the bank. that refinance also allows the borrower to pay
off all the unsecured debt they ammassed on their credit cards. The problem
is, eventually the whole industry reaches a point where home values no
longer go up every year. That point is reached when people aren't buying
anymore...a point where home values peak at the same time (and largely
because) unemployment also starts increasing significantly.
I don't really believe that to be the case, but if you do believe it then
the solution is to make people take a class and pass a test before being
allowed to own a home; just as is required for the license to drive a car.
I don't believe that, either. People are given the time to read. people
choose not to take that time of their own accord.
Yep. Consumers were lying to the banks about their income and their debt in
order to get loans that they knew they could not afford. They did this
because they saw everyone else that was buying 'over their heads' was
getting 'free money' through rising home values.
Another regulation that should be put in place for home buying is for people
to be required to submit several years of tax returns. The ability to buy
should be directly tied to the income that gets reported to the government.
If you are a small businessman that lies on your tax return so as to avoid
having to pay your fair share of taxes, then one of the penalties will be
that you cannot get the home that you can afford, much less the one beyond
what you can afford.
It is absolutely ridiculous that people can go in to get a loan and declare
themselves to have tice the income (or more) than what they claim on tax
returns...and then the government works to bail them out when they cannot
afford to make their mortgage payment.
I don't buy that...but then I also don't buy into the idea that people are
signing a piece of paper with the interest rate and the words 'ARM Adjustabe
Rate Mortgage' and the reset terms/timing written right on the page, but
they sign without reading any of it...and you still want to blame the bank
and claim that the people are not given the time to read it? Is there no
place for personal responsibility?
Insurance costs and tax rates are tied to the value of the thing being
insured/taxed. If the value of the thing rises, the costs to insure it and
pay taxes on it will also rise. I agree that there are likely people that
do not know this...one more reason to force people to take classes and pass
tests before being allowed to own land/home.
If by 'lied to' you mean that they lied to themselves. When people tell
themselves that their income is going to keep going up every year and they
will eventually be more comfortable they need to more honestly look at that
claim. If they plan to have kids or retire soon, for example, then they
need to realize that their 'income' will be going down, not up. ...and
anyone buying a home with the feeling that they can refinance in a couple of
years to try and catch up on their debt....well, those people are gambling
and they know it.
Unfortunately, yes, people have not actually become any more responsible.
The even bigger problem is that IF people became more responsible with their
spending, the economy will have even more trouble recovering...so there
isn't much incentive for the government, the banks, or the merchants to try
and encourage responsibility.
Agreed. Hard to sell raising taxes by 30% overspend year after year to
bailout losers with bad credit ratings and don't pay their bills.
Hopefully after this is said and don't some stiff laws and hard nosed
for abuse types can re-take control from the debt mongers. Pity we all
have to pay for debt, welfare and perpetual abuse.
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
I was talking to a woman the other day who was telling me that she was
in the process of refinancing her house to get some money out to buy a
car, and she mentioned that she refinances often, the most recent time
before this one being las October (five months ago). She was claiming
that it didn't cost her anything because the lender said that it was a
"no cost" refinance. Clearly she did not understand that closing costs
were added onto the loan balance and that every time she refinanced her
loan balance was going up by around $3000 (unless she had negative
points to offset it, in which case the interest rate would be higher).
Well the government is not bailing out the borrower as much as they're
bailing out the lender by trying to keep the borrower from defaulting.
Unfortunately, there are tons of people just like her that are suplementing
their 'income' by living off of their home equity. Lots of those people got
a rude awakening over the last couple of years when they found out that they
couldn't refinance again and that they actually had to live on their
True. However, if the government is going to decide that this form of
corporate welfare is going to continue (bailing out companies that are 'too
big to fail), then the government should take some regulatory steps to help
reduce the chances of this kind of welfare being needed in the future. Step
#1: every person that is given a home loan should be forced to submit
several years of tax returns and the amount of loan that they can qualify
for should be based upon that income. one affect will be a reduction in the
number of people cheating on their taxes to hide income. Another affect
will be to stop people from overextending themselves beyond their means with
their mortgage commitment. And yes, I realize that it will mean that people
with less than a couple years of income history (just out of school, just in
the country, etc...) won't be able to get loans...but that is a good thing
If Obama wanted to solve it, he would pass a debtor law, default and you
become a slave until it is paid.
Then after a few examples, they will start paying.
Many are now playing the poor game to get handouts.
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
Want more government regulations? You have not seen anything yet, wait
till the government totally takes over our health care in 2014.
It has already begun! The Government that CURRENTLY regulates trans-fats
is trying to tax the "sugary" drinks that are killing our children.
Next will come smoking regulations. One local major employer announced
today they will test all new workers for nicotine, if you have it in your
system they will not give you a job because it will further increase their
health care costs under the new bill.
Three major US manufactures are telling us their health care cost will go up
by millions of dollars a year, which will lead to higher prices for their
products. What next will they not employ any new employees who are
overweight? The federal government will start controlling what we eat for
the same reasons. Can government control of the use of alcohol be far
Not only will the government be telling you what you can eat, wait to you
see what happens to your privilege to DRIVE when they start to restrict
driving, or what you can drive to reduce the number injured on killed on our
I suspect we will see a new "1984" book written called "2084," total
government control of the lives of all those still alive at the time. LOL
They regulate drugs, requiring that the meet certain purity and
effectiveness standards. They regulate doctors, teachers and other
professionals, requiring that they don't have a serious criminal history
before they can go into the clinic or classroom. What a horror? What's
next? Requiring that priests don't molest children? And what right does
the federal government have to make sure that cars are safe? The nerve
of the government.
That's a local employer taking its health-care costs in its own hands.
Should we regulate that, too?
Well, if a business stops hiring fat people, isn't that the business's
decision? Are you saying we should regulate businesses?
What if it is one of those three major US manufacturers? That would help
lower their health-care costs.
That alcohol regulation would be good for you and stop your drunken rants.
Legally, I may not drive a tractor-trailer, school bus or motorcycle.
You think this is a bad thing?
In other words you think it is a good idea for the GOVERNMENT to control
what or where YOU choose to eat, or what YOU choose to buy? How about
where you live or what you say, is that a good idea as well? Try doing a
search of the governments powers in Germany in 1939, dummy
You are even more of a lefty loon then I suspected. IF you were still
alive in 2084 you likely would be first in line to buy the book. Do you
realize some of the outrageous things predict in 1984 already have, or soon
will, come to pass....dr_jeff?
wrote in message >
Regulate and control are too different things. I don't think it is a
good idea that quacks with names like chiropractors, homeopaths and
naturopaths can sell their snake oil - unproven and sometimes dangerous
treatments. The free-market economy didn't work so well with the
mortgages, did it?
You mean the Germany which the US was fighting when my father and three
uncles entered the war? The one the claimed my uncle's life?
Not all regulation is bad.
You're talking about the proverbial "slippery slope". The problem
occurs when there is no discerning between what is minimally necessary
in the sense of "That goevernment is best which governs least" (first
written by Thoreau in his essay "Resistance to Civil Government").
Consider the contradiction between the ideas of "keeping the government
out of my bedroom" (talking about gay rights and other sexual subjects)
or "Keep the government's hands off my uterus" (the
feminist/pro-abortion crowd) and being for single-payor (government)
healthcare, in which the gubmint essentially in many respects owns your
body and knows everything about you (to use as they will).
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
Let's look at the other side of the coin: Where do you draw the line of
the government involvement in and micromanagement of our personal lives?
It sounds to me like once we violate any of the Constitution in that
regard, your philosophy is that that barrier is now broken, there
therefore now are no constraints, we throw the Constitution out.
The problem is that when government has the extra-Constitutional
authority that it has taken on, it allows manipulation of information
to achieve political goals (hidden agendas). The present day is full of
examples in things such as "extinction of polar bears" and "global
warming". Once a problem is identified and linked to a cause using
false science, then anything that can in any way be associated with that
cause is subject to restriction and taxation, never mind that the
original premises that the controlled activity is linked is based on
false/manipulated science invented purely to accomplish hidden goals.
Health care is a problem? OK - private property is no longer a valid
concept - we'll confiscate what we need from those who have it
(redistribution of wealth), Marxism rules, the Constitution drools.
The Constitution prohibits certain things precisely because those things
are subject to manipulation by despots (see Declaration of
Independence). Prohibiting things that otherwise may seem like the
"right thing to do" are protecting against a much worse "evil" (can I
say that word?).
Basically what I'm saying is that we are way down on that slippery slope
and have no Constitution left by all the "logic" that is being applied
in our political system.
Pick up and read a copy of Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny".
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
Incorrect. My philosophy is that the proper place of government (that is
the people) is to set up regulations so that people are protected from
unfair and unsafe practices (e.g., lending laws and health laws).
You seem to make the assumption that there are hidden agendas and that
global warming is not real. Fact is that the evidence overwhelmingly
shows that our unintentional manipulation of the CO2 concentration can
have drastic changes in the environment and that last changes have
That's human nature. Look how we let Bush run over us with anything
linked to 9/11 and security.
However, as pointed out, it is not false science. It is false science to
assume that we can dump CO2 into atmosphere and destroy our environment
We already have a redistribution of wealth - from the poor to the rich.
If you don't believe me, look at how the poor and middle class have
barely got richer while the rich have become much richer over the last
20 or years. In addition, health care is a big reason why wages haven't
gone up all that much. Companies pay so much for health care, they can't
afford higher raises. Yet, no one has explained why health care should
be paid for by employers.
Right, I am going to waste my time reading anything because you
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.