Sad day for America

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.

She probably doesn't understand that once you own your home, you can lose it in a foreclosure, either. Once it's paid off, the only way you can lose it is if you don't pay your taxes.

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 incomes.

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 as well.

Actually not. There are programs to give money to losers and welshers.

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.

That's been going on for decades, to the tune of over ten trillion dollars.

It's called welfare.

And they play it with multiple identities.

Easy to do when documentation isn't required.

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.

How many defaulters were helped out by the programs?

That whole thing was a scam. I looked up my '85 F150 on the web site, and it didn't qualify because the fuel mileage figure on it was 21 mpg. Anybody who has ever owned one of those knows that that truck never would get above 13 mpg on its best day. How many other vehicles were listed with stupidly wrong figures like that? (BTW - I never would have traded it in - I looked it up out of curiosity - plus I think the whole program was immoral.)

Ok, so tell me, what part of my comment is incorrect?

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 behind?

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 highways.

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

"

" I guess this was a case of dueling references:

• formatting link
  Focus #1

• formatting link
  Focus #1

I should have paid more attention to the dates. Sorry for the confusion.

The definitive refence matches yours. See

. The following data is from that reference: Dealer Transactions Number Submitted: 690,114 Dollar Value: $2,877.9M Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased

Toyota Corolla Honda Civic Toyota Camry Ford Focus FWD Hyundai Elantra Nissan Versa Toyota Prius Honda Accord Honda Fit Ford Escape FWD

New Vehicles Manufacturers

Toyota - 19.4% General Motors - 17.6% Ford - 14.4% Honda - 13.0% Nissan - 8.7% Hyundai - 7.2% Chrysler - 6.6% Kia - 4.3% Subaru - 2.5% Mazda - 2.4% Volkswagen - 2.0% Suzuki - 0.6% Mitsubishi - 0.5% MINI - 0.4% Smart - 0.2% Volvo - 0.1% All Other -

Mike,

Explorer SUVs weren't introduced until 1990 for the 1991 Model Year.

Ed

I don't know about your 1985 F150, but my 1992 4.9L Automatic F150 would average over 18 in mostly highway driving. Around the farm the mileage dropped to the mid teens, but my overall average for the 14 years I owned it was well over 16 mpg.

Ed

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?

Yeah, right.

Mike, at least go read the list of most traded in vehicles. None were

1980 to 1987 Explorers - which should be obvious since the Ford Explorer SUVs weren't intriduced until 1990 (for the 1991 Model Year). There were special models of full size pickups that were "Explorer" models but they aren't the SUVs and they aren't on the list.

Ed

Will you please stop it? Mike doesn't care about facts. If it exists in Mike's mind, that's good enough for him. Reality be damned!

Jeff

But that is mostly becasue people were trading in old trucks and SUVs. Ford sold more of those in the 90's than anyone else, so it isn't surprising that they were popular models to trade in. Wouldn't you like $4500 for a 14 year old Explorer? Or a 14 year old 4Runner? There were just lots of old Explorers out there. If I had one, I'd have traded it in.

Ed